The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Franklin on September 13, 2013, 02:07:56 PM
-
I'm 10 years past my divorce. The kids have grown. I date. I am happy. I have a secure financial future. But my path started at the very bottom. I had my clock cleaned. What I claimed as my net worth was divided in half and given to my ex-wife. She has now remarried, so now her assets are also his assets. So by my own logic, her new husband owns 25% of my net worth as it were. (Think about it.) I invested in my ability to pull myself up by my bootstraps, so my settlement gave most liquid assets to my ex, and I kept the long term investments. So I had to live cash poor. She bought me out of my house, giving me enough to pay for 20% on my new house. I bought at the top of the market, right before the crash. The value of my house went down about the same amount of my deposit. Then I lost my job because of the economic downturn. Face-plant, the official bottom. I only had a single moment of panic, when I realized I couldn't afford Christmas. Aside from that, I kept my sights on the future. With a keen eye on my expenses, a market bounce-back, and a new job, I dug out slowly but surely. I have gained so much wisdom from that experience.
So what's your story?
-
Pre MMM, bought my now ex-wife a brand new SUV, because she didn't want to share a car with me (wanted her own). 25k, 100% financed. We were divorced a year later; I got stuck with the bill and she kept the car.
-
I have a friend, now happily retired, who was divorced five times (!) without significant financial calamity. I once asked him how he managed that and he laughed "I never marry a woman who is difficult to divorce!"
-
About 1.5 years ago my ex and I split up. It was my decision, she loved me but i did not love her.
We had purchased a house together at around the market peak. We had paid down quite a bit of the mortgage and the size of the payments compared to what our incomes had become was quite low. I guess a fairly typical story. I miss the house sometimes!
The breakup came and she handled it extremely maturely. We kept our finances separate, so the only thing was the house. Basically it was sold - for about a 15% loss. I made sure she got back all the "principal" she put in. So this shifted the loss market losses of the house from splitting it to 100% me.
Taking the loss on the house was my decision and i have never regretted it. The way i think about it.... the biggest loss we both suffered was time. The money is insignificant in the long run when you consider what you would do with those years once you know you are not in the right relationship. This is written from the perspective of a short term relationship admitting that once children get involved the splits are not nearly as clean as my super simple example.
-
As I was divorcing (he left me for men), I discovered my ex had opened "joint" credit cards and done huge balance transfers from cards that were his before we met onto the new "joint" cards. Meanwhile, he cleaned out the savings account (not a huge amount) and I later learned he had borrowed thousands from his mother -- and used a cash advance check on a cc to "pay her back".
Because the joint cards were opened online, I was told I had to prove I hadn't applied for them (!!!!) and because I couldn't prove a negative, and because we lived in a state where all joint debt became marital debt, I got stuck with half the bills.
But wait! There's more! My student loans came due shortly after we separated, and they were for $3500 more than I had taken out. For the next year I argued via certified mail and phone that the amount was wrong. Then the loans went into deferral for 5 years, but no one ever resolved the discrepancy.
When the loans came due, I kept fighting, until my school's financial aid office produced a photocopy of the signed $3500 student loan check -- with my FORGED signature in my ex's handwriting.
By then he was dead (cancer). I couldn't prove he'd done it. I never saw the money and have no idea what he did with it; it never went through our accounts, and I had rejected the loan that year at school for the first semester. This was the second semester's allotment of loan (which I'd rejected as well). I had to pay it back.
And I could go on...
-
When I met my now-DH he was recently divorced, still no property settlement, not enough income (on his own) to support his kids (he and his ex split time and costs, but of course there was considerable duplication e.g. both had houses with a bedroom for each kid that was only used half the time) and no money to pay his ex for her half of the house they jointly owned that he was still living in.
We got that sorted out with the help of my income (but only barely; I was fresh out of grad school and while I had no debt I also had no assets and not much earning potential in those early years), put the kids through college (split costs with the ex), covered their health insurance until they could manage it on their own, spent a ton of money on infertility treatments after DH's vasectomy reversal didn't work and now have one kid at home, plus the two grown and gone. And we and DH's ex, now remarried, aren't best buddies, but we get along well enough to e.g. share a vacation rental when we and the grown kids and their families all get together.
So, you know, we muddled along. But yes, DH and his ex took a big whack when she left him, and I joined the fun when I joined him.
-
My friend says..."Instead of getting married, I'm just going to find a woman I hate and buy her a house."
-
thaks for the horror stories everyone ;)
-
This is my first post here...been lurking for several months.
This thread got my attention since I am going through a divorce myself. I pretty much lost everything two years ago. I had to declare bankruptcy and was discharged in June. I am now trying to rebuild my life at 39. I often see on this forum and others how many people are counting on their joint money to obtain FI. That is something I will never do again. I lost 20 years of my life because my ex decided to do something (someone) else. I think it is extraordinarily risky to mingle your personal financial economy with another person.
I have since found a new love and we live together (a year now), however, our finances are completely seperate and will always remain seperate. My share of our living arrangements are no more than I could afford on my own i.e. if something happened with us I could live on my own without skipping a beat - financially speaking. I see so many people that get together and get into a lifestyle that takes 2.5 people (or more!) to support LOL. Been there, done that, lost it all.
I have learned some hard lessons and I am now on a much better track. I am currently saving 41% of my income after all my expenses including child support. Not too shabby. Once my kids are older I'll be well over 50%...of course I'll be in my 50's when that happens :(
-
I second that it's extraordinarily risky to mingle finances with another, but so too it's extremely risky to mingle emotions with another. I'm divorced, and though divorcing meant splitting our assets down the middle, as we'd both contributed more or less equally over the 25 years of our marriage, this didn't seem a horror show to me. The biggest financial impact of the divorce, for me, was the effect the emotional uproar had on my ability to work. For the first three years after, I was so wiped out and depressed, I did nothing more than tread water, financially. (I'm self employed, so if I don't do the work, I don't get paid.) But as I got over it all, my frugal muscle got back in shape, and I regained my normal work ability... life is much better. It sounds like a number of earlier posters felt they contributed more than their ex-spouses in the time before divorce, so yeah, that would suck to see half of what you mostly contributed go to someone else. Although I probably contributed more than half over the years of my marriage, our partnership was so long, and financially we shared the same values, so I don't feel bitter about it. Wasn't easy, wouldn't want to go through it again, but I've landed on my two feet because of what I did myself after the divorce.
-
Hi everyone,
I'm still dating but this is a topic I'm very interested in because I know how big a setback divorce would be for my goals.
On_a_slow_boat and Thespoof: How did you bring up the topic of keeping finances separate with your significant other? Were they offended at first and you had to convince them, or did they get on board right away? I know every situation will be different, I'm just curious to hear how your's went. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I completely understand.
-
Well, I think all relationships start out with things seperate so as the relationship went forward I made my position known through general converstaions. She also agrees that we should keep things seperate - thank gwad because she isn't the greatest with her money :-) she can do what ever she wants so long as she has enough to pay her share of the bills! If she wants to blow every last penny on lulu's and wine that's her prerogative LOL. I did bring up the idea of signing a cohabitation agreement as well...she seemed ok with that. I am very interested in protecting my money and personal economy from forced common law relationship crap. Never likely to get married again for the very same reason and if I did there would be a prenup without a doubt.
-
JHC, I sense your discomfort with that conversation, and I share the same sentiment. It doesn't seem natural to enter a relationship while covering your a**. It sounds very awkward. Also, I may be a little old fashioned but I still hold out hope that when "the one" comes along I will be willing to throw it all away.
-
It's important to figure out where you stand on these sorts of things early, rather than later.
It's better to realize 3 months into a relationship you don't see eye-to-eye on something significant than to wait 3 years to find out (this goes for anything which is "make or break" - money, religion, family, etc).
-
It doesn't seem natural to enter a relationship while covering your a**.
To each their own, so not judging, but I wanted to comment on your above sentence. My philosophy: "It doesn't seem natural to live my life without covering my a**." A relationship doesn't change how I view the world. I'm still a practical, worst case scenario thinker. I just don't ever think that I know how something will play out or that nothing wrong will ever happen.
As to the rest of the thread - not divorced. But I have a pre-nup and separate finances, so if I divorced I'd know exactly what my assets would be.
Re: having the conversation about separate finances, yes, it generally comes up a bit while dating. If you split the bills or take turns paying you give each other the impression of maintaining financial autonomy. It was relatively easy to have that conversation when we were thinking seriously about marriage, as we both preferred separate money. I was the one who brought up the idea of a pre-nup, even though he had more assets than I did. As the more financial savvy person, I felt it was the right thing to do, to bring up the topic. I wanted to be as open and upfront with him as possible. And I wanted to make it 100% clear that I wasn't marrying him for his money.
I think, if you have very different views on how money should be split or not, you may not be compatible enough to get married. There's no way I'd ever allow someone else full access to my money. Full knowledge, but not full access. If they couldn't deal with that, then no big loss.
You could say I'm setting my marriage up for failure, or am a jaded anti-romantic, but with all the divorce stories out there, I really don't know how people can continue to jump full in without a second thought to the potential financial losses.
-
I am in a common-law relationship and we keep our money separate. For legal reasons, my lawyer told me to do this. In a nutshell, my spouse isn't able to get a divorce inexpensively at this point. And, yes, he has tried everything from a do-it-yourself kit and being reasonable to going to a lawyer.
Plus, I was in a relationship before with a controlling spouse and I won't go down that road again.
Plus plus, in that relationship I didn't take care of my legal rights and wasn't that careful in my finances, so I am happier keeping my money separate these days.
Anyway, we have a cohabitation agreement which is protective of me against my spouse's wife. Not to mention, if we should separate. We are an older couple and when I told him that I wanted a cohabitation agreement (aka pre-nup) he didn't have a problem with it. Especially since it would protect my assets against his wife which was a huge concern for him as well. I wouldn't feel at all safe in my circumstances without this agreement.
My gut tells me that younger people may take offence if their fiance/fiancee asks for a cohabitation agreement. They may not have the experiences with divorce that older people might have had (and I would hope not). And it sounds pretty un-romantic.
-
The unromantic thing is funny to me. One's personal economy has nothing to do with romance and needs to be protected from other people otherwise one could be in big trouble when the other person decides to chart a different course and takes everything from you. Romance and finance are not bedfellows.
When I found out she was sleeping around and I left, I ended up in a basement suite for a year with literally nothing more than a chair, a tv and my office equipment...a buddy had to lend me a blow-up mattress to sleep on. I was in debt up to my eyeballs, business was brutally slow and I now had rent to pay, debt payments to make, half a mortgage and kids and to pay for since my then wife couldn't afford the place on her own. And i wasn't making much more than peanuts at the time. It bankrupted me when we sold the house eventually for a loss of $160,000. Never again will I put myself in that position. My money is my money, I work hard for it and I intend to keep it :) And since finding MM and other sites plan to make it work hard for me...I currently save 41% of my income now.
-
Thanks for sharing your experiences Thespoof, Kestra, and Franklin.
Franklin: I agree that it does seem awkward to enter a relationship with that mindset. Hopefully I'll find the perfect woman and am lucky enough to never have to deal with it, but you never know what can happen and how people can change.
I've never had a very serious relationship, so I don't know exactly how it goes, but I'm hoping that through the feeling-out process we'll have a fairly good idea early on if we're on the same page.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic about this, but I'm of the same mindset as Thespoof. I worked really hard to save what I have and want to do what I can to make sure it isn't taken away. I also think that part of a serious relationship is being able to trust and commit to your partner, so with a bit of luck I'll find that special lady and won't have to worry about it.
-
My gut tells me that younger people may take offence if their fiance/fiancee asks for a cohabitation agreement. They may not have the experiences with divorce that older people might have had (and I would hope not). And it sounds pretty un-romantic.
I think too that many "younger" people are contemplating having/raising kids with their future spouse, and I personally feel (and would guess many others do too) that it's hard to think about keeping finances separate while planning/raising a family. Conversely, "older" people may be more likely to have existing kids whose interests they want/need to protect and thus may have motives for keeping finances separate that don't apply to those who are entering a romantic relationship but don't have children (not that everyone older does and no one younger does, but just in general).
-
JHC: You are half my age but twice as wise. Keep it up.
Thespoof: You sound like you got hurt real bad friend. I went through some of the same conditions as you. I'm sure you learned a lot about yourself. To your point, I don't agree that "one's personal economy has nothing to do with romance." When you find the one you love, it's ALL about personal. If you are not willing to leave yourself completely vulnerable to her, emotionally, physically, and yes financially, then she's not the one. I'm not talking about being gullable. We are not FI because we are idiots. I'm just talking about loving a woman as you would love your kids. For me that would be UNCONDITIONALLY.
-
Hmm, well as a divorced older person:
When I married I was "in lurv", unconditional, naked, exposed etc etc. No hesitation in making joint finances.
Once married I discovered he was a spendthrift, and once divorced my finances improved massively, so no WMFD here. Interestingly finances were not part of the reason for divorce, but it was a nice silver lining to finally figure out I would be better off as a single parent.
If I were to re-couple I'd only consider a fellow frugal: in any case I doubt I'd find much compatibility with a consumate consumer.
-
I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.
But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.
-
I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.
But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.
For anyone contemplating marriage or divorce, read DoubleDowns' post several times until you really get it. It's no joke and happens every day. I have a friend who started his/her LIFETIME alimony/maintenance payments not long after turning 40. LIFETIME does not mean until you retire - it means until one of you dies or the receiver of the alimony remarries! That's a high cost for 15 year marriage.
-
I haven't ever been married, but went through a split with my husboyfriend earlier this year. In our case, things went well as we had separate finances and agreed on everything involving our daughter. BUT. From this point on, now that I have a child and have set out on the mustachian path, I am stumped as to how a relationship is going to fit into my life any time soon. Which is fine, because I'm enjoying singledom for now. I do like Franklin's point about being willing to lose it all - that is how I've rolled in the past, only now I'm dead sure I'm NOT willing to do that. I could say that I'll never get married, but knowing me I'll tie the knot at 60 to some frugal farmer/artist/drummer or something. :)
-
I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.
But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.
For anyone contemplating marriage or divorce, read DoubleDowns' post several times until you really get it. It's no joke and happens every day. I have a friend who started his/her LIFETIME alimony/maintenance payments not long after turning 40. LIFETIME does not mean until you retire - it means until one of you dies or the receiver of the alimony remarries! That's a high cost for 15 year marriage.
This is why I support equality in relationships, financial and otherwise. You want to find a partner who is as equally matched with you as possible. Ideally, you would have near-equal incomes and savings rates.
-
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
To put another perspective out there. Imagine you leave the workforce and devote yourself - as agreed - to raising your 3 children. You could go back to work when the kid are in school, but your spouse wants you to stay home to keep house, run the kids to their activities, volunteer with the kids activities, take care of admin, etc. The last one is off to college 25 years later. You are now 50-odd and your spouse then drops the bombshell - now that the kids are gone s/he wants a divorce. You try to get a job, but in this economy...getting a job at your age is tough, particularly with no experience. And if you do get a job, you'll get one commensurate with your experience - not one you could have gotten had you worked all of those years. So you struggle and meanwhile, your spouse sees little change (beyond splitting the total marital wealth into your share and his/her share) because s/he never left the workforce, has years of experience and not just a job but a career.
This tale isn't me. I have a career and a husband. But I've taken a family law class, and I've done pro bono work. I've seen both sides of the equation. Many jurisdictions are moving towards limiting alimony, to rehabilitative alimony, but recognize that long-term marriages are complicating. Yes, both parties should understand the ramifications - but even still, I would tend to tell my best friend to NOT stay home unless well protected, because she is more likely to end up with the more difficult path rather than the earning spouse.
-
^^^
Agreed, both parties should understand the consequences of their choices. I did not mean to imply that the situation is necessarily unfair for men or the person paying alimony; in many cases the stay-at-home person has made sacrifices as well giving up their own career, and it would not make sense to expect them to waltz back into the workforce after being absent so many years. I suspect though, that many working partners with higher incomes don't understand what they could be signing themselves up for in the event of a split.
+1 on rehabilitative alimony. My state (Virginia) is old fashioned both in divorce, alimony and custody laws, too bad it hasn't become more progressive. As an example, it is one of only 7 remaining states that do not have a presumption of shared custody. Instead, it's left to the parents to fight it out -- "in the best interests of the children", of course (great!!).
-
I think truly high earning folks know what they are risking. They tend to get prenups. But those a few steps down the ladder likely are not as informed as they ought to be, on both sides.
BIOC (best interests of the children) is fairly universal. It startles people though to find out what that might mean. For example, a judge might not agree with you that it's in the best interests of a child to stay home at a frugal level, rather than continue working. Similarly with child support, note that one parent can argue in at least some states that you shouldn't take a lower paying job and can get alimony/child support on what you "ought" to be capable of earning, even if not doing so. Not great for the person quiting a low paying job to go school....
Mine, Massachusetts, has recently revamped its laws. I haven't read through the new ones myself, but I've heard they've moved away from long-term alimony. In both MA and PA though, at least most judges deem it to be in the BIOC that parents have shared legal custody, if not physical.
-
What I want to know is why so many people seem extremely surprised at their spouse's actions during divorce. Are there no personality warning signs one can look for to determine if your potential partner is going to drag you through the coals in a divorce? As mentioned above, plenty of people can find amicable solutions that are, for the most part, fair. So did someone hide their true personality really well, or change personalities? Or did you always know your spouse was a shark and you just though they'd always be on your side? Serious question.
-
What I want to know is why so many people seem extremely surprised at their spouse's actions during divorce. Are there no personality warning signs one can look for to determine if your potential partner is going to drag you through the coals in a divorce? As mentioned above, plenty of people can find amicable solutions that are, for the most part, fair. So did someone hide their true personality really well, or change personalities? Or did you always know your spouse was a shark and you just though they'd always be on your side? Serious question.
I think there are warning signs for many, but they might be the same things that contribute to a divorce. You might marry while in the honeymoon stage, have a kid, and try and stick it out thinking it will get better. I know several people who were in this situation.
In addition, divorce tends to bring out the worst in many people. Loss/grief and high stakes over money and kids can create lead to irrational decisions. Good people can go a little nuts in those circumstances.
-
What I want to know is why so many people seem extremely surprised at their spouse's actions during divorce. Are there no personality warning signs one can look for to determine if your potential partner is going to drag you through the coals in a divorce? As mentioned above, plenty of people can find amicable solutions that are, for the most part, fair. So did someone hide their true personality really well, or change personalities? Or did you always know your spouse was a shark and you just though they'd always be on your side? Serious question.
It was the bolded part above in my case. There were probably signs when we were dating 16 years prior, but I was an in love dumb horny naive 21 year old.
She was a SAHM during our 15 year marriage. We split the assets 50/50 and the kids 66/33; I was OK with the former but saddened by the latter. I also paid a small lump-sum rehabilitative alimony, have paid child support for 7 years and will pay for another 7. I will fund college for the three kids based on my own values and not anything written in the divorce decree. In my state child support basically goes through high school.
So for me, short term it was an atrocious setback, but even before the divorce became final I realized that the financial damage was now limited and I could earn and save my way to a good spot.
7 years after the divorce and I am now FI and in OMY mode. I have no real expenses other than child support and the mortgage. If things continue the way they have been, I will have enough to pay off the mortgage by my birthday next year when I turn 45.
I'm still single and haven't really dated, which is atypical. Mainly I don't trust myself to make a similar mistake again. I'm romantic thick-headed enough to not go the prenup route, but am also not keen to split my net worth in half a second time. Plus now I don't trust women after one of them broke her vows to me. I realize that's painting with too broad of a brush, but it keeps me safe from the pain.
-
Despite not even being engaged yet, my partner and I have made sure we're on the same page with what will happen if we divorce. I guess both having divorced parents helps us to be realistic. We'll split the wealth 50-50 regardless of who has earned more, and custody of children 50-50.
But my main learnings from failed relationships so far are that if you are on the same page with financial and life goals, spending habits, etc, the risk of hideous breakups is a lot lower, and if you spend several years building a life together before marrying, you should already know whether you're horribly incompatible and you have an opportunity to back out.
Of course, I'm pretty confident that my bf isn't a nutjob, or I wouldn't be willing to marry him. So I'm planning on being that old, daggy couple celebrating their 50th anniversary and driving their kids mad.
-
I would also like to share my dad's advice on marriage: know your partner. Know them well. Know how they behave when nothing in their life is working out how they want. Know how they act when they're dead tired and cranky. Know how they react in tough situations. Live with them long enough that they drop their public persona and you see their true face. Ask someone honest and insightful "do you see any issues with this person?". Live with them long enough that you know what they're really like and what they really want from you.
Then if you still want to marry them, you get my blessing.
-
I would also like to share my dad's advice on marriage: know your partner. Know them well. Know how they behave when nothing in their life is working out how they want. Know how they act when they're dead tired and cranky. Know how they react in tough situations. Live with them long enough that they drop their public persona and you see their true face. Ask someone honest and insightful "do you see any issues with this person?". Live with them long enough that you know what they're really like and what they really want from you.
Then if you still want to marry them, you get my blessing.
+1. This is where I missed the boat.
-
In addition, divorce tends to bring out the worst in many people. Loss/grief and high stakes over money and kids can create lead to irrational decisions. Good people can go a little nuts in those circumstances.
+1
-
Dave Ramsey said the biggest thing couples fight about is money -- which I assume might probably lead to divorce. When I got married I was very firm about keeping our finances separate. We don't share any financial accounts at all. There is no issue when I want to buy something with my money, or he with his. It may not sound very "romantic" but to me it's been a great relief that we never fight about money. Now housecleaning...well that's another story :) actually he's pretty good.
-
For the poster that asked I people could see any signs, divorcees I know realized the signs too late.
For example, one person seems to drink a bit too much, you drink along to have fun. Or they always seem to be waiting for the next paycheck to buy something. Or they haven't gotten around to start saving in their 401k despite being eligible for a company match. Or you joke about how many pairs of shoes the partner has. Or they pay a little to much attention to the opposite sex
Know your partner and don't be blinded by love or lust.
-
I had my clock cleaned.
I can SO relate. My divorce was final last year, I am in my mid fifties. It was the worst financial hit of my entire lifetime. I lost 50 percent of my worth and then some. Prior to the divorce I was in pretty good shape, now I am struggling to rebuild. It's a long story, but suffice it to say I was against the divorce, I was served papers out of the blue. I may not have been the most attentive or romantic husband, but there was no abuse or misconduct on my part and I was a good provider. The worst surprise was that I was required to pay her alimony. Why? Because we were married 21 years and she was a stay at home mom for the last 10, she has no college degree. I had been trying for years to get her to go back to work or go back to school but she was content to sleep in until 10 am every day, watch TV, and run up our charge cards. (If you see your spouse doing this I strongly advise you to take drastic action!)
After a year and half of legal struggles (my attorney fees alone were $15,000) we finally settled. She got 60% of my 401k, half my pension, plus I have to pay her the equivalent of a huge second mortgage in alimony payments for the next three years (on top of child support). She also ran out and left me with our special needs-teenage daughter who requires a great deal of care, she took our son so i still have to pay child support towards his care....why? Because I have a job with income and she does not (at least she did not at the time of the judgement). I actually settled for a great deal less than she initially asked for, my attorney said I got off easy and I was lucky that I didn't have to pay her life-long alimony.
This is the ugly part of divorce. It really doesn't matter who did what, who started the problem, who bailed out on whom. What the courts look at (at least where I live) is THE ABILITY TO PAY. If you have a good career and your spouse does not, watch out! You could be financing a junkie's habit for the rest of your life because she as a junkie does not work, and you as a responsible person do. The system sucks badly.
Do I sound bitter? I am. Never again. Marriage is potentially slavery, modern day indentured servitude, you are signing away your rights and your wealth. If you chose to marry I strongly advise you to get a good pre-nup agreement first and keep your finances separate. Better yet, just have a relationship without signing the voluntary slavery documents that go along with marriage.
PS - if your marriage is looking shaky best to get out early, the longer you wait the more you will pay!
-
I'm amazed at how two people can be so in love, and the next minute they are in court fighting over money (seen it happen to 2 couples whose expensive weddings I attended). I can't imagine doing that. I'd rather just walk down the street and rent an apt. Who wants to fight over money? Why does money bring out such *hate* in people? (I'm not referring to anyone here, mainly thinking of people I know).
-
I am currently in the process of a divorce. It's not final, but if it falls out the way I hope and expect (he has the decree now and I'm waiting on his signature), I keep my accounts and he keeps his. We already split the joint checking/savings when we separated in October. We are both in our 20s and have few assets (a car each, and typical furniture, etc, no house/land) and no kids. Between his half of our liquid assets and his retirement account balances, he walked away with about $16,000 of what had been "our" net worth. I'm currently sitting pretty (comparitively) at about $56,000 in net worth (my current liquid assets plus my retirement account balances). My living expenses have increased significantly (rent, etc), but interestingly enough, so has my savings rate. :-D
There were other, deeper issues in our marriage, but we definitely didn't see eye-to-eye on money, either. He wanted a $40,000 overhaul on his 1975 Corvette (that hasn't been registered/inspected with the state in over 15 months... and did I mention he only makes about $30,000/year?), and I wanted to save for FIRE. Since losing the dead weight, I've been able to save an average of about 45% of my net income and have set up my automatic transactions to max out both my IRA and my TSP (401k). And he is free to spend his money however he chooses.
For me, the divorce has been a short-term setback, with a likely future of significant positive returns, both emotionally and financially. We were married less than 3 years, and my biggest mistake was not knowing him well enough beforehand. We had known each other for a few years prior to marriage, but we didn't date for long enough to know each other as partners instead of friends. Now I know for next time. I also plan to protect myself and my assets, because in a different situation, this could have gone a lot worse. And I plan on having significantly more assets by the time I marry again. :-D
-
I'm amazed at how two people can be so in love, and the next minute they are in court fighting over money (seen it happen to 2 couples whose expensive weddings I attended). I can't imagine doing that. I'd rather just walk down the street and rent an apt. Who wants to fight over money? Why does money bring out such *hate* in people? (I'm not referring to anyone here, mainly thinking of people I know).
Money isn't bringing out the hate. It is the anger over the failed marriage that is. Money is just the tool used to take that anger and frustration out.
I would be horribly screwed in a divorce. Even if I gave up all non-retirement accounts and my non-business account. My wife is a SAHM and we have two kids. The alimony and child support would probably wipe out every bit of income I could bring in.
-
[/quote] I would be horribly screwed in a divorce. Even if I gave up all non-retirement accounts and my non-business account. My wife is a SAHM and we have two kids. The alimony and child support would probably wipe out every bit of income I could bring in.
[/quote]
Take my advice, do everything that you can to get your wife's earning potential up. Even if she is a stay at home mom maybe she could take on-line classes and get some job skills. Even a part time job is a step in the right direction. Having her stay at home while her job skills atrophy is almost a guarantee of alimony in the event of a divorce. Even if you two get along famously and stay married you are doing her a favor by improving her job skills. What would happen if you became disabled and couldn't work? It happens all the time to people.
Also I think a lot of people on this thread who say the money isn't a big deal must be younger folks. When you are young quite honestly money is not such a big deal, you have a lifetime of earnings ahead of you. When you start crowding 60 MONEY BECOMES A VERY BIG DEAL. When you are young, your net worth tends to be much smaller. Paradoxically, alimony typically is not awarded for shorter (younger) marriages when much less is at stake, rather alimony is awarded after long term marriages which tends to affect older people approaching retirement more severely. When you are older you do not have the time to rebuild, also if you lose your job it is much more difficult to get a new job. You have far fewer years to build up (or rebuild) the nest egg you need for financial independence and retirement. Trust me, the older you get money becomes an increasingly bigger deal. That is why I am on this forum.
-
Same here. Wife is SAHM who won't even entertain the idea of working outside the home. She also turned down college when younger so her earning potential is far below my current one. I also have more than 2 kids and will lose everything in the event of a divorce.
The sad thing is that because I'm the saver, the more I save the more she will get in the event of a divorce.
-
I'm 19 but I'll try to explain my take on this as best as possible.
I want to be dead sure of who I'm going to be with for life. I want us to have a very similar outlook on life. I currently look for "marriage material" as much as possible. I don't think I'm going to tell my wife spouse about my finances until we are married. That's probably a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm not going to go around in the early stages telling my finances because it's just a way to marry for the wrong reason. My personal finances should be independent of how we mesh.
If any of that made sense...
-
It's interesting that we're hearing mostly from men on this thread. I find some of the comments to be a little off-base (things like "she got/will get half of my net worth." What's this "my"? Shouldn't it be "our" net worth?). That said, I feel the same way about SAHMhood though from a different angle. I never wanted to be dependent on a man and didn't want to step out of the job market for any length of time because I know it can be difficult to re-enter. Regardless of whether our marriage falls apart, something happens to DH (death or disability), or one of us lost a job, I wanted to have two viable incomes so we could weather any one of these.
As we get closer to FI, I find myself more willing to take risks and contemplate taking time off, lower paying job, part-time work, etc. But those opportunities are available to DH as well. I think having one SAHP and one working parent is a really valid choice for families to make, but it does introduce financial risks into the equation that I wasn't willing to take.
-
It's interesting that we're hearing mostly from men on this thread. I find some of the comments to be a little off-base (things like "she got/will get half of my net worth." What's this "my"? Shouldn't it be "our" net worth?). That said, I feel the same way about SAHMhood though from a different angle. I never wanted to be dependent on a man and didn't want to step out of the job market for any length of time because I know it can be difficult to re-enter. Regardless of whether our marriage falls apart, something happens to DH (death or disability), or one of us lost a job, I wanted to have two viable incomes so we could weather any one of these.
With my divorce I did not mind the division of property so much. I went into it knowing that the wealth acquired during the marriage would be split 50/50/ I was OK with that. What burns, and continues to burn is the alimony. My X chose to live a casual life of relaxation for the the last five years of our marriage. Despite my continued prodding for her to get a job or finish her education, she chose to be lazy. And of course the courts do not want to hear this. All they want to hear is that I make money and she does not so all other factors aside I am now a slave and I am forced to pay her monthly slavery payments. ON top of that she walked away with a large property settlement so it wasn't like she was destitute. BTW she jumped up and got a job about the same time the ink was dry on the judgement. On top of that she spent money like a drunken sailor (again over my continued protests). Three time she ran her charge cards up into five digits, three times I paid then off and she promised not to do it again.
The alimony....it burns. In my case I feel it was very unjust.
-
It's interesting that we're hearing mostly from men on this thread. I find some of the comments to be a little off-base (things like "she got/will get half of my net worth." What's this "my"? Shouldn't it be "our" net worth?).
This x1000
Although my husband and I have probably contributed about equally to our total net worth, I can't imagine agreeing to anything other than a 50/50 split, even if he had been home with the kids for 10 years (which counts as work IMHO!) instead of earning outside the home.
-
I love it when people who get or got divorced say "she took half of MY net worth" when really, far more often than not, she only took her half of what the two of you accumulated together while married.
-
It's interesting that we're hearing mostly from men on this thread. I find some of the comments to be a little off-base (things like "she got/will get half of my net worth." What's this "my"? Shouldn't it be "our" net worth?). That said, I feel the same way about SAHMhood though from a different angle. I never wanted to be dependent on a man and didn't want to step out of the job market for any length of time because I know it can be difficult to re-enter. Regardless of whether our marriage falls apart, something happens to DH (death or disability), or one of us lost a job, I wanted to have two viable incomes so we could weather any one of these.
Agreed, it is very interesting. I also find it interesting that I find myself very unhappy at the attitude expressed here (force her to get a job so she doesn't get YOUR stuff!) and yet, I've told women the same thing - only in much different terms (be careful giving up your job to stay at home with the kids! you skills will atrophy/not be up to date, you will be dependent on him/the courts and can get really screwed over if you divorce). It's all in the tone and phrasing I guess. I know of a couple that got married - he's from a wealthy family and has lots of money but invested it in businesses. She supported him in this (financially paying for their bills, emotionally and housework). They got married, both intending her to stay home and have lots of kids (part of their religion). JUST before (*cough, asshole*) they were to get married he hands her a prenup, which offers her....nothing, if she gives up her job to be at home as both wanted, nothing for supporting him while he got his busineses going, nothing. He refused to even pay her insurance for a time while she'd look for a job (she's got medical issues so giving up the job is a big deal), which I thought was pretty low. They got married and then divorced a year later before kids, thankfully, and thankfully her old company wanted her back. ETA: I'm not opposed to prenups, and support them in certain situations. I just think surprising someone with one is not a cool move, and the courts agree bc it can even make the prenup fail to hold up.
TL;DR: There are sucky stories on both sides of the fence. It's not just men or women that get screwed in a divorce.
I love it when people who get or got divorced say "she took half of MY net worth" when really, far more often than not, she only took her half of what the two of you accumulated together while married.
+1
Except the lawyers got a share too, so both parties got less than 50% and are wicked unhappy as a result.
-
I got half of our assets. It never occurred to me to ask for alimony. I was just happy to be able to finally control my half before he lost it on one more get rich scheme.
He hasn't gotten rich yet, but he still has some of his half left. Meanwhile, my net worth has about doubled in the past 10 years.
-
If worried and untrustworthy thats a problem in itself. I have know many people that go get a safety deposit box and everyweek dump cash money in there just in case. When i ask them what if your marriage is great they all have the same answer. I have been saving for years for something special. Most of these people arent worried about cash drag and I have to admit they convinced me to do it for awhile. But i stopped doing it and slowly put the money back into accounts. I was married and had a shotgun wedding/child. Just sold a business and had to pay 3300$ a month in child support. X went and built a house and her new husband hung himself. Some tough times and I never thought I would marry again. 4 kids and 18 years later if things were to go bad which i doubt i am calloused enough now I dont think it would beat me down like the first time but i dont want to find out either. Get a strong pre-nup which mine now is useless. But not a situation that should wreck anyone. Tough yes but survivable! and sometimes like in my case better off.
-
I have been divorced once and yeah financially it sucks. Mine was 7-8 years ago and I am still paying off some of the debt I got stuck with plus extremely high child support. I suck it up and pay it but I can't wait till that (child support) is gone. Love my kids but no way it would cost me this much to raise them myself.
-
I'm 19 but I'll try to explain my take on this as best as possible.
I want to be dead sure of who I'm going to be with for life. I want us to have a very similar outlook on life. I currently look for "marriage material" as much as possible. I don't think I'm going to tell my wife spouse about my finances until we are married. That's probably a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm not going to go around in the early stages telling my finances because it's just a way to marry for the wrong reason. My personal finances should be independent of how we mesh.
If any of that made sense...
Doesn't matter. No matter how hard you try.. The "right one" today, maybe the "wrong one" tomorrow or two years from now or 10 years from now.
My wife and I had a great dating relationship. We had our issues, and looking back on it, some of those issues probably would have indicated there would be trouble in the marriage but they seemed to be minor at the time. Now, those differences have added up (one probably was a bigger clue that I didn't pick up on - we were supposed to go away for a weekend, I had to work the night before due to a software release. The release went bad and I felt I had to stay to help out - she made it a "work is more important than me" even though I was back only 2 hours after we were supposed to leave -- I was the senior member of the team and felt like if my team was going to be there, so should I). She threatened to leave, I had actually told her to, but she didn't. I kind of felt like it was a test (like I said - things I should have picked up on that might cause trouble later on).
As far as net worth - sometimes people do bring more to the table, not everything is 50/50 no matter how you would like to believe it. I'm not saying that is in all cases, and I'm not even saying that is the person with the greater earned income which contributes the greater amount. Generally when you start thinking about divorce it is a mine vs theirs.
-
I'm 19 but I'll try to explain my take on this as best as possible.
I want to be dead sure of who I'm going to be with for life. I want us to have a very similar outlook on life. I currently look for "marriage material" as much as possible. I don't think I'm going to tell my wife spouse about my finances until we are married. That's probably a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm not going to go around in the early stages telling my finances because it's just a way to marry for the wrong reason. My personal finances should be independent of how we mesh.
If any of that made sense...
This is all fine, but I would still encourage you to be as open and honest as possible. Through the course of a relationship, as it develops, there are periods of time where it's appropriate to feed just a little more of "who you are" to the person you're with, because you don't just lay out all out on the table on the first date unless you want that person to run for the hills.
At your age in your position the two pieces of advice I could give (potentially not related to finances) are...
1. strive to grow together with the person you choose; because if you grow apart it likely will not end well. This does not mean that you should be all up in each other's business 100% of the time, but your core values should develop similarly
2. make it your mission in life to make your partner smile, and seek out a person who will do the same for you. Because if the two of you are happy, you will surely have a successful marriage.
3. (bonus) never force it. If something doesn't feel right about a person prior to marrying them, follow your instinct.
-
A marriage is a partnership, so your ex did not take half your net worth. She took her fair share of a combined net worth.
After ten years you still sound bitter.
I'm doing very well 13 years after. So is my ex. And so is his wife. It was hard soon after, but we are all doing well.
Best yet, my kids will never hear me talk about their father with the same attitude you have about your ex.
-
Doesn't matter. No matter how hard you try.. The "right one" today, maybe the "wrong one" tomorrow or two years from now or 10 years from now.
My wife and I had a great dating relationship. We had our issues, and looking back on it, some of those issues probably would have indicated there would be trouble in the marriage but they seemed to be minor at the time. Now, those differences have added up (one probably was a bigger clue that I didn't pick up on - we were supposed to go away for a weekend, I had to work the night before due to a software release. The release went bad and I felt I had to stay to help out - she made it a "work is more important than me" even though I was back only 2 hours after we were supposed to leave -- I was the senior member of the team and felt like if my team was going to be there, so should I). She threatened to leave, I had actually told her to, but she didn't. I kind of felt like it was a test (like I said - things I should have picked up on that might cause trouble later on).
As far as net worth - sometimes people do bring more to the table, not everything is 50/50 no matter how you would like to believe it. I'm not saying that is in all cases, and I'm not even saying that is the person with the greater earned income which contributes the greater amount. Generally when you start thinking about divorce it is a mine vs theirs.
I really like reading these stories of clues one should have picked up on early in a relationship before getting married to someone who ended up divorcing. It's a real lesson for the rest of us.
-
Take my advice, do everything that you can to get your wife's earning potential up. Even if she is a stay at home mom maybe she could take on-line classes and get some job skills. Even a part time job is a step in the right direction. Having her stay at home while her job skills atrophy is almost a guarantee of alimony in the event of a divorce. Even if you two get along famously and stay married you are doing her a favor by improving her job skills. What would happen if you became disabled and couldn't work? It happens all the time to people.
Also I think a lot of people on this thread who say the money isn't a big deal must be younger folks. When you are young quite honestly money is not such a big deal, you have a lifetime of earnings ahead of you. When you start crowding 60 MONEY BECOMES A VERY BIG DEAL. When you are young, your net worth tends to be much smaller. Paradoxically, alimony typically is not awarded for shorter (younger) marriages when much less is at stake, rather alimony is awarded after long term marriages which tends to affect older people approaching retirement more severely. When you are older you do not have the time to rebuild, also if you lose your job it is much more difficult to get a new job. You have far fewer years to build up (or rebuild) the nest egg you need for financial independence and retirement. Trust me, the older you get money becomes an increasingly bigger deal. That is why I am on this forum.
Boy I must be clueless. I thought alimony no longer existed. (Maybe it's different in each state?) I thought (unless you have kids for child support) that once the couple splits the money, that's it. I'm a woman but I think alimony sounds weird to me. Why should I expect someone to support me? It's my fault if I don't have job skills. Honestly, with a 50% divorce rate, no one should put themselves in a position of depending on their partner financially. That is really being clueless, or living in the 1950's. I have always told girl friends "don't have kids until you are financially able to raise them on your own if you have to."
-
Boy I must be clueless. I thought alimony no longer existed. (Maybe it's different in each state?) I thought (unless you have kids for child support) that once the couple splits the money, that's it. I'm a woman but I think alimony sounds weird to me. Why should I expect someone to support me? It's my fault if I don't have job skills. Honestly, with a 50% divorce rate, no one should put themselves in a position of depending on their partner financially. That is really being clueless, or living in the 1950's. I have always told girl friends "don't have kids until you are financially able to raise them on your own if you have to."
Unfortunately, it does. now, while women do tend to get it, men have also as well. When you look at SAHP, they are taking themselves out of the workplace and are placed at a disadvantage. I don't consider that a 1950s thing.
I find that last bit interesting - especially since the decision to have kids/not have kids can have a big strain on a marriage.
-
Boy I must be clueless. I thought alimony no longer existed. (Maybe it's different in each state?) I thought (unless you have kids for child support) that once the couple splits the money, that's it. I'm a woman but I think alimony sounds weird to me. Why should I expect someone to support me? It's my fault if I don't have job skills. Honestly, with a 50% divorce rate, no one should put themselves in a position of depending on their partner financially. That is really being clueless, or living in the 1950's. I have always told girl friends "don't have kids until you are financially able to raise them on your own if you have to."
Yes, alimony varies by state.
In my state, alimony is tied to marriage length and only extended beyond that in certain situations where there is a reason the other party can't easily work (e.g. asking a 60 yo person to go find a job, who last had a paid one at age 22 and has since been at home raising kids/taking care of house/family for 40 years? going to be tough.)
Here is an interesting legal article summing up the history of alimony:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2012/april_2012/current_trends_alimony_law.html
>Why should I expect someone to support me?
For me, it comes down to what the parties agreed ex ante, before they were thinking divorce. If the parties together agreed that one party should stay home, then it seems quite unfair and unreasonable to change this agreement 20 years later because you're getting a divorce. (I'm not saying it should be permanent! Just that yes it seems reasonable to compensate/support the one who gave up 20 years of working experience and career for a time).
My parents are happily married for 42 years, with my mom a stay at home mom because my dad's career as a military officer and moving every 2-3 years made it hard for her to continue what she had been doing (teaching). She faced different licensure standards in each state, some of which were pretty stringent (e.g. wouldn't accept her masters degree and would require her to complete another masters). She wouldn't be able to build up tenure, if she could even get a job each time. Some, my parents worried about tax implications of whether the state (ok, just CA) would try to go for dad's retirement salary if she worked. In this case...her difficulty with building a career was directly due to supporting my dad in his career. If they divorced (ahhhH! I can feel evil rays coming from them for even suggesting the possibility! AHHHH! yeah, they're that disgusting couple more in love after 42 years than at the beginning that is hard to live up to), it would not be right for my dad not to support my mom. It's not like if she got a job now for a few years, it could begin to make up/catch up for the years not being in the workplace. People support their spouses in many ways, from cooking/cleaning/taking care of the kids so the other partner can stay late or travel, to financial support while one is in say, med school, to agreeing to be uprooted and move.
Divorce is tough no doubt. But I don't think entirely ending things like alimony is the right solution either. It's very fact dependent, and as they say - there's her story, his story and the truth. People are biased to think their circumstances are special and unique. The truth is no one wins in a divorce.
-
I love it when people who get or got divorced say "she took half of MY net worth" when really, far more often than not, she only took her half of what the two of you accumulated together while married.
This. Reminds me of when men talk of "babysitting" their own children.
That all said, my friend (a woman--gasp!) has to pay alimony to her deadbeat ex. He had a high-paying job and gave it up after they got married. Since he never bothered to get another job, my friend has to pay alimony to him at least until their very young child is 18. Another 9-10 years. And the child doesn't live with the dad either. So, the money goes to support the ex's life with his new girlfriend.
I would need some serious therapy to get through the above situation.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?" I think MMM is a great role model that he quit work to raise his child. Maybe that is the real problem, parents should share the responsibility.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?" I think MMM is a great role model that he quit work to raise his child. Maybe that is the real problem, parents should share the responsibility.
Who said supposed to?
Anyways I know men that have wanted to be the SAHD (such as my BIL) but finances have so far prevented them from doing. I know men who have physical custody of the kid(s).
But biologically - the woman gives birth, and needs to medically recover for a time afterwards. Some women also face depression issues after a birth (PPD). The woman also is the only one who can breast feed (and damn, it's hard to do at work from what I see). So physically, yes, it does make sense that for the first year the mom stays home if anyone, not the dad. After that? Inertia? Particularly if they have more kids? (She'd have to go out and get a new job, he's already got one, and has a year, or more if multiple kids, of exp under the belt).
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?" I think MMM is a great role model that he quit work to raise his child. Maybe that is the real problem, parents should share the responsibility.
I think your question is a bit silly, since many women don't feel that way, and some men do choose to sah.
Certainly I think the ideal would be for both parents to work 50-75% (if they want to. Nothing wrong with both wanting to work full time). But the reality is that for many/most careers that isn't possible. So most families are forced to choose between both working full time, or one not working at all.
I think there is a huge desire for meaningful part time work. In my SAH circles, I attribute the prevalence of those stupid MLM sales party schemes to this need. Many SAH moms are going a bit crazy and would like a break from their kids and to bring in a bit of money, but the only PT jobs available are selling pampered chef or minimum wage type jobs that won't cover childcare costs and will fire you if you have to stay home with a sick kid. In my experience most SAH spouses do go back to work once their youngest is in school full time,which was probably not the experience of the older generation of divorce whiners in this thread. But even then, there is a huge desire for either PT work, and/or a flexible schedule that allows for staying home with sick kids, attending school meetings, etc.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
+1 sister
I think the other thing that disturbs me about this thread is the "money over people" attitude. Although this is an ER forum, I would put forth the idea that money should not be the most important thing you accumulate in life. As a SAHM, I would have dramatic financial changes if my husband wanted a divorce, but my biggest regret wouldn't be the loss of net worth or lifestyle. We see on this forum that many people live happy lives on "poverty" levels of spending. My regrets and worries would be for my marriage, for my children, and for my spouse. To quote Grandpa George in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [family], there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy? " *quote changed for relevance.
Of course sometimes divorce (and other bad things) happen to good people. The money is the easiest thing to fix. The hurt, pain, and sadness is much harder. Ask yourself what would MMM do? He's already answered that:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/10/if-i-woke-up-broke/
-
Boy I must be clueless. I thought alimony no longer existed. (Maybe it's different in each state?) I thought (unless you have kids for child support) that once the couple splits the money, that's it. I'm a woman but I think alimony sounds weird to me. Why should I expect someone to support me? It's my fault if I don't have job skills. Honestly, with a 50% divorce rate, no one should put themselves in a position of depending on their partner financially. That is really being clueless, or living in the 1950's. I have always told girl friends "don't have kids until you are financially able to raise them on your own if you have to."
Yes, alimony varies by state.
In my state, alimony is tied to marriage length and only extended beyond that in certain situations where there is a reason the other party can't easily work (e.g. asking a 60 yo person to go find a job, who last had a paid one at age 22 and has since been at home raising kids/taking care of house/family for 40 years? going to be tough.)
Here is an interesting legal article summing up the history of alimony:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2012/april_2012/current_trends_alimony_law.html
>
Divorce is tough no doubt. But I don't think entirely ending things like alimony is the right solution either. It's very fact dependent, and as they say - there's her story, his story and the truth. People are biased to think their circumstances are special and unique. The truth is no one wins in a divorce.
My great frustration was that the court did not want to hear the facts such as how I attempted on numerous occasions to get my X back into the workforce. Its all hearsay in the courts eyes. Over and over I was was told, the number one deciding factor for alimony and child support is the ability to pay. I had a job, she did not, game over I pay. Nothing else matters. Earlier I somewhat sarcastically mentioned that your X might be a junkie and therefore unemployable. Conceivably you could pay alimony to a junkie because you have the ability to pay and your X does not.
And yeah, you can fight it out in court, but then you ring up outrageous legal bills and then there is a good chance you will make it worse on yourself. Court dockets are jammed, judges are busy, they don't want to hear your story, they just want to get you out of their courtroom as quickly as possible. Justice is only available for those wealthy enough to afford it. As bad as the settlement was for me, when I saw my final legal bill (15K) I wanted to collapse to the floor and weep. I imagine hers was nearly as much. Think of it, 30K flushed down the toilet in the name of obtaining marginal justice. The legal fees are not even tax deductible. That's like two years of hard won saving up in flames, and because I was the guy working and saving and economizing I recognize what a substantial loss that was.
FWIW I also thought that alimony was a relic of the 1950s. I am wiser now. For the average middle class person, divorce is one of the largest financial landmines that you can possibly step on. I hoped in this thread to at least give younger folks a warning.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?" I think MMM is a great role model that he quit work to raise his child. Maybe that is the real problem, parents should share the responsibility.
I think a better question is... "what's so great about having a career that makes it better than having the opportunity to raise your children and watch them grow?"
No reasonable person would argue that parenthood is not a shared responsibility. But for somebody in the house, a big part of that shared responsibility is ensuring that enough income flows in to keep that roof over everybody's head.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
+1 sister
I think the other thing that disturbs me about this thread is the "money over people" attitude. Although this is an ER forum, I would put forth the idea that money should not be the most important thing you accumulate in life. As a SAHM, I would have dramatic financial changes if my husband wanted a divorce, but my biggest regret wouldn't be the loss of net worth or lifestyle. We see on this forum that many people live happy lives on "poverty" levels of spending. My regrets and worries would be for my marriage, for my children, and for my spouse. To quote Grandpa George in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [family], there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy? " *quote changed for relevance.
Of course sometimes divorce (and other bad things) happen to good people. The money is the easiest thing to fix. The hurt, pain, and sadness is much harder. Ask yourself what would MMM do? He's already answered that:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/10/if-i-woke-up-broke/
You bring up another good point. I had no choice in the divorce, I wanted to stick it out and try to make things better. Guess what, it doesn't matter! You could stand in front of the judge and say "why yes, your honor, I wish to stand by my commitment and stay married"; too bad, you have no choice, if your spouse files you are screwed and there is nothing you can do about it.
I guess that is the underlying point, when you get served with divorce papers you have very little in the way of choices or say. They tally up your assets and income, plug it into a computer program, arrive at some numbers and send you packing. I wish I could have contested my divorce but it is not allowed! No fault divorce, nobody is at fault, but you still get the bill. I have a special needs daughter that desperately needs both her parents and I wanted to fight to do the right thing, mom couldn't take it any more and bailed out. I thought that would be significant to the court. Nope, too bad sir, tough luck on you, you have no say, you have the ability to pay, she does not, you lose, NEXT!
-
So what happens if you quit your job the second divorce papers are filed? How do they calculate future payments (child support, alimony, whatever)?
-
So what happens if you quit your job the second divorce papers are filed? How do they calculate future payments (child support, alimony, whatever)?
I asked my attorney the same question. The answer was that if the judge gets even a hint that you are trying to game the process they will put the screws to you even harder. They will also look at your potential income. If you have good job skills and your X does not they will be looking to you to pay. I have even heard stories of people going to jail for not paying their x spouses. I thought that there was no such thing as debtors prisons, but apparently there are.
And that's the point, you lose a lot of power and rights when you say I do. Many people do not realize the potential damage that can occur, and I was one of them. Sadly the worst stories tend to happen to people later in life. My dad's wife (my step mom) got really sick later in life. My dad was of limited means, not dirt poor but lower middle class. His wife needed nursing home care. My dad was forced to spend down most of his assets before the state would step in and help with the bills. If they had not been married this would have never happened.
On your wedding day marriage is all sunshine and lolly pops. Twenty or thirty years later reality can smack you up side the head.
-
So what happens if you quit your job the second divorce papers are filed? How do they calculate future payments (child support, alimony, whatever)?
Usually they say X is your earning potential and thus %X is what you are required to pay. If you don't pay its starts adding up. When you go to get a new job they garnish the wages.
The child support issue is interesting. It is paid to the other parent and they can do whatever they want with it, period. They can put in place a high spending lifestyle for the child and make a whole host of decisions with the child that the other parent has no say in. If they choose to be collaborative, great, if they don't then the only course is to go back to court which costs $$$$. And the outcome rarely makes any improvement.
It can be really difficult.
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
I think the point is that:
- If no alimony at all, ALL of the financial risk for a joint decision goes to the stay at home one. (No money to support oneself while finding a job AND a lesser job than if you worked those years plus an overall reduced career trajectory.)
- If some alimony, the financial risk for a joint decision is shared
- If permanent alimony for a short marriage, virtually all of the financial risk for a joint decision goes to the working one. (I limit this to a short marriage, because in a long marriage, there really is no time for the spouse to get back on their feet working. For example - marry at 20, divorce at 60, that's 5 years and hard to get hired as a 60 yo with no work experience.)
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Yes, pretty much. I know of a couple guys who were unemployed and behind on child support. They put out arrest warrants and tossed them in the clink. Being unemployed was not an excuse. Perhaps they were expected to sell their blood and internal organs.
To be fair I have only heard of this happening in the context of child support. And those guys were released after a couple days. But the courts can be very persuasive when they force you to pay. Someone else mentioned garnishment of wages, if you get behind in your payments and later catch a break and get a job, count on them garnishing your wages. If you have any appreciable assets the court can seize them as well. Divorce is no joke, its as serious as a heart attack, especially if there are kids or it was a long term marriage.
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.
They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse. E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars. I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.) I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
Right, but my point is that it should be a joint risk.
My risk is that we get divorced I have little to no earning potential, and I get a few years of alimony to get a job at will definitely be lower in salary than if I had worked the whole time.
His risk is that we get divorced, and he has to pay me alimony for a few years.
Both of us benefitted from me staying home all those years.
-
It is a choice. But the choice isn't made by the stay at home partner. It is made by the couple. Seems pretty fair to me that both pay for that choice.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
-
It's interesting that we're hearing mostly from men on this thread. I find some of the comments to be a little off-base (things like "she got/will get half of my net worth." What's this "my"? Shouldn't it be "our" net worth?).
I agree.
I also question if a blanket anti-SAHP stance will sometimes prioritize the accumulation of money over working towards ones values, priorities, and true happiness. Eg., DH is a SAHD. I am fully aware that if we divorced in the next few years or if he never wound up going back to work FT even after DD is in school, I will be paying CS and alimony. I am not bitter about that, b/c it is not *MY* money, even though I WOH. I love him being a SAHP and see the risk of losing money b/c of it well worth for what it enables (us to live the life we really care about).
And I am well aware of the effects of CS on wealth accumulation. DH was previously married and we have paid hefty CS (using my earnings) for the past 12 years. And we'll be footing most of the bill for college, in addition to the cost of having bought a bigger house for rooms for the kids, paying for all of their gifts, clothes, and vacations, etc. Yet somehow, we've still managed to make progress towards FI. So, in the scheme of things, divorce is not as financially scary as it has been presented, IME. We are, after-all, mustachians; we'll still be able to figure out how to save money and build our networth.
-
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
This is beyond imperfect, it is immoral. If you are legally compelled to maintain employment under threat of incarceration, you are basically and indentured servant. I'll be dramatic and call it a human rights violation, because it is generally considered unacceptable to force an individual to perform labor under threat of any kind.
-
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
This is beyond imperfect, it is immoral. If you are legally compelled to maintain employment under threat of incarceration, you are basically and indentured servant. I'll be dramatic and call it a human rights violation, because it is generally considered unacceptable to force an individual to perform labor under threat of any kind.
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN. You choose to have them (have sex, particularly while not wearing protection or getting sterilized etc) and yes, the state can force you to work to support them rather than walking away. Because the law thinks they need protection because a 4 yo can't take care of herself.
People can rack up many thousands of dollars before I've seen incarceration threatened. The one I mentioned above had gotten over $100k.
-
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
This is beyond imperfect, it is immoral. If you are legally compelled to maintain employment under threat of incarceration, you are basically and indentured servant. I'll be dramatic and call it a human rights violation, because it is generally considered unacceptable to force an individual to perform labor under threat of any kind.
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN.
Serious question. How does putting people jail provide support for their children?
-
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN. You choose to have them (have sex, particularly while not wearing protection or getting sterilized etc) and yes, the state can force you to work to support them rather than walking away. Because the law thinks they need protection because a 4 yo can't take care of herself.
People can rack up many thousands of dollars before I've seen incarceration threatened. The one I mentioned above had gotten over $100k.
To be specific, I am refering to alimony, not child support. I'll let you reformulate your response.
-
Right, but my point is that it should be a joint risk.
My risk is that we get divorced I have little to no earning potential, and I get a few years of alimony to get a job at will definitely be lower in salary than if I had worked the whole time.
His risk is that we get divorced, and he has to pay me alimony for a few years.
Both of us benefitted from me staying home all those years.
Totally this! This is my situation. My husband and I both worked and made about the same amount of money. After our son was born we tried both working full time still - and we didn't like it. It was stressful and emotionally difficult. So we made the choice together that I would stay home. He's able to focus on advancing his career and I focus on taking care of our son and all of the house, money, admin stuff. We are totally happy with this choice.
If we get divorced, it will obviously be financially rough on both of us - but like MayDay said, it has to be a joint risk.
-
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
This is beyond imperfect, it is immoral. If you are legally compelled to maintain employment under threat of incarceration, you are basically and indentured servant. I'll be dramatic and call it a human rights violation, because it is generally considered unacceptable to force an individual to perform labor under threat of any kind.
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN.
Serious question. How does putting people jail provide support for their children?
I think it's usually just for a few days and it's supposed to be a wakeup call. The one guy I know who got jail time for back child support miraculously managed to find a job afterwards after being unemployed for years
+1
-
Serious question. How does putting people jail provide support for their children?
It doesn't, but directly helping the victims isn't really the reason most people get put in jail. Functions of jail can include removing people from society, deterring others from doing the same, and just plain revenge.
-
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
This is beyond imperfect, it is immoral. If you are legally compelled to maintain employment under threat of incarceration, you are basically and indentured servant. I'll be dramatic and call it a human rights violation, because it is generally considered unacceptable to force an individual to perform labor under threat of any kind.
It is true, but whether it is immoral or not is up to debate. The important thing to understand is that getting married and having children obligates you in very serious ways, and the courts will hold you accountable. It is a fair enough thing to be required to support children. I think being required to support an X spouse is more akin to slavery, at least in some cases. It's too bad that the courts have become little more than rubber stamping machines that tend to apply once-size-fits-all rulings to everyone
-
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN. You choose to have them (have sex, particularly while not wearing protection or getting sterilized etc) and yes, the state can force you to work to support them rather than walking away. Because the law thinks they need protection because a 4 yo can't take care of herself.
People can rack up many thousands of dollars before I've seen incarceration threatened. The one I mentioned above had gotten over $100k.
To be specific, I am refering to alimony, not child support. I'll let you reformulate your response.
Because of all of the reasons already put forth in this thread. First, I'm not actually clear whether they do put people in jail for failure to pay alimony - I only know for sure that they do for child support. But second, it's because you agreed way back when to support each other in "good times and bad." Now you've come to the bad, you've decided to split and the state feels they shouldn't be left holding the bag supporting your ex (particularly after a lengthy marriage) by having them go on public assistance.
-
I would also like to share my dad's advice on marriage: know your partner. Know them well. Know how they behave when nothing in their life is working out how they want. Know how they act when they're dead tired and cranky. Know how they react in tough situations. Live with them long enough that they drop their public persona and you see their true face. Ask someone honest and insightful "do you see any issues with this person?". Live with them long enough that you know what they're really like and what they really want from you.
Then if you still want to marry them, you get my blessing.
Love your father's sage advice! Thanks for sharing these rays of hope in an otherwise serious topic.
-
So we made the choice together that I would stay home. He's able to focus on advancing his career and I focus on taking care of our son and all of the house, money, admin stuff. We are totally happy with this choice.
If we get divorced, it will obviously be financially rough on both of us - but like MayDay said, it has to be a joint risk.
I suspect most married couples with a SAHP feel this way...until they don't. You guys are happy with this choice today, but will both of you in 15 years during a divorce?
-
Boy I must be clueless. I thought alimony no longer existed. (Maybe it's different in each state?) I thought (unless you have kids for child support) that once the couple splits the money, that's it. I'm a woman but I think alimony sounds weird to me. Why should I expect someone to support me? It's my fault if I don't have job skills. Honestly, with a 50% divorce rate, no one should put themselves in a position of depending on their partner financially. That is really being clueless, or living in the 1950's. I have always told girl friends "don't have kids until you are financially able to raise them on your own if you have to."
Yes, alimony varies by state.
In my state, alimony is tied to marriage length and only extended beyond that in certain situations where there is a reason the other party can't easily work (e.g. asking a 60 yo person to go find a job, who last had a paid one at age 22 and has since been at home raising kids/taking care of house/family for 40 years? going to be tough.)
Here is an interesting legal article summing up the history of alimony:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2012/april_2012/current_trends_alimony_law.html
>
Divorce is tough no doubt. But I don't think entirely ending things like alimony is the right solution either. It's very fact dependent, and as they say - there's her story, his story and the truth. People are biased to think their circumstances are special and unique. The truth is no one wins in a divorce.
My great frustration was that the court did not want to hear the facts such as how I attempted on numerous occasions to get my X back into the workforce. Its all hearsay in the courts eyes. Over and over I was was told, the number one deciding factor for alimony and child support is the ability to pay. I had a job, she did not, game over I pay. Nothing else matters. Earlier I somewhat sarcastically mentioned that your X might be a junkie and therefore unemployable. Conceivably you could pay alimony to a junkie because you have the ability to pay and your X does not.
And yeah, you can fight it out in court, but then you ring up outrageous legal bills and then there is a good chance you will make it worse on yourself. Court dockets are jammed, judges are busy, they don't want to hear your story, they just want to get you out of their courtroom as quickly as possible. Justice is only available for those wealthy enough to afford it. As bad as the settlement was for me, when I saw my final legal bill (15K) I wanted to collapse to the floor and weep. I imagine hers was nearly as much. Think of it, 30K flushed down the toilet in the name of obtaining marginal justice. The legal fees are not even tax deductible. That's like two years of hard won saving up in flames, and because I was the guy working and saving and economizing I recognize what a substantial loss that was.
FWIW I also thought that alimony was a relic of the 1950s. I am wiser now. For the average middle class person, divorce is one of the largest financial landmines that you can possibly step on. I hoped in this thread to at least give younger folks a warning.
@ Beridian, Frankling and DoubleDown: Reading your stories really opens ones eyes to how difficult divorce can be and some of the serious financial implications. Thank you all for sharing. Got some questions for you any anyone else if you don't mind sharing your ideas.
1) If you had a pre-nup where you bring in more assets than your partner prior to marriage, wouldn't that be sufficient to protect your assets (especially if you kept your finances separate)?
2) Would putting your assets into trusts help protect you?
3) Don't quite understand how or why 401k and IRA accounts should be split especially if one party can prove X amount was saved prior to the marriage. Any thoughts on this?
4) We have a friend whose wife is the same as your ex, she got fired and now refuses to work; he alone works and pays for everything. He won't divorce her (almost in his 70s) and is constantly living a life of stress and desperation. Really feel for him and but there just isn't a support from her and we feel terrible for him. Big IF they divorced why wouldn't Courts consider her lack of contribution/employment (she is perfect able but chooses not to) especially if there are no children? You mentioned some reasons in your earlier posts, but wonder isn't there some level of responsibility that both parties need to exhibit?
5) How do inheritances factor in divorce? Say the husband gets one before the divorce or after, won't that still be split?
Fascinating stories each and every single one. Thanks everyone for sharing , so much wisdom in these stories. :)
-
I am happily married with two kids, and my wife has been a SAHM for about 4 out of 7 years of our marriage. Our youngest child is about 13 months now, and she's been at home with him. Lately- i've been asking her about getting back into the workforce. She is actually in early childhood education and any job she gets is very likely to come with either free or reduced childcare- which would be big for us.
Anyway- she's been pushing back on me pretty hard, not wanting to go back to work. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of my job, so i'd love to accelerate our path to FIRE by adding in some more income into the household. But, she insists that she wouldn't be happy at work right now. I'll admit it is tough. At no point when we got married did we say that one of us would be a stay at home parent indefinitely. She wanted to stay at home for the first year for both of our kids, and I totally supported that. And i'd agree with folks that I was only able to reach my full earning potential with her at home taking primary care of the kids.
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
-
But second, it's because you agreed way back when to support each other in "good times and bad." Now you've come to the bad, you've decided to split and the state feels they shouldn't be left holding the bag supporting your ex (particularly after a lengthy marriage) by having them go on public assistance.
If "support each other in good times and bad" means that the support doesn't end at divorce does that mean I can ask the court to have the ex spouse support me as well? I need somebody to do all the domestic duties that are now unfulfilled if there's an expectation that I continue to support via holding a job.
-
I was divorced in 2008 after 23 years of marriage. When my spouse asked it was a complete shock but after a while I found that I could see the signs. I had just been blinding myself saying, "I am happily married, I am happily married" continuously. Right after our youngest child turned 18 my spouse announced "I want to be on my own before I get too old."
I had no problem at all with splitting our assets 50/50. We had both started with almost nothing and everything we built, we did together.
My spouse had been SAH for the last 10 years. Before we filed I asked about maintenance but my spouse said "No".
I hired a lawyer to do the paperwork. We could have done it ourselves but is was too emotionally draining for me. On my lawyer's recommendation I wound up giving my spouse around 60% of our assets and nearly 100% of the liquid assets to reduce the risk of my spouse coming back later asking for maintenance.
Previous posters have mentioned the emotional impact. I was devastated and an emotional wreck for a long time. But time heals if you let it. I focused on work and started volunteering extensively. There was an empty spot in my heart for years but eventually it filled in.
Was it a big financial hit? Of course! We were very close to FI at that time though we had not really thought about it that way. After the divorce, I had virtually no cash but still had my job (and the dog).
Fast forward 6 years and my post divorce NW has tripled, I am in a new stable relationship, and I am back to FI.
Not all stories are bad.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
Right, but my point is that it should be a joint risk.
My risk is that we get divorced I have little to no earning potential, and I get a few years of alimony to get a job at will definitely be lower in salary than if I had worked the whole time.
His risk is that we get divorced, and he has to pay me alimony for a few years.
Both of us benefitted from me staying home all those years.
OK so it is a joint risk, but what if you had no say so in the divorce? What if it was forced upon you?
Lets say my spouse and I agree that one parent stays at home. Fine, we agree, I am to be the breadwinner and my spouse is the homemaker. Its a contract of sorts (as is the marriage). Now my spouse decides they want out. I am still keeping up my end of the contract, I am supporting everybody, I did not break my contract, my spouse did. So is it then fair that I am required to pay alimony to my spouse? The divorce was my spouse's decision alone, I was not an equal partner in that decision, it was unilaterally made by my spouse. I was an equal partner in the marriage decision and the stay at home parent decision.
You will likely say it depends on the circumstances which is reasonable. If I were abusive towards my spouse I would have some liability. If my spouse on the other hand found someone else that they liked better, then I should not be held responsible, after all I upheld my end of the bargain. The problem is that the courts do not want to hear the reason, they just look at the numbers. Can you see the injustice in that?
-
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
It was a joint decision for her to stay home, and it should be a joint decision whether or not she goes back. I don't think you have to be the bad guy, you just need to have serious discussions about how you both see the next 5 years going, then the next 5.
I'm going through this right now, but I'm encouraging my wife to stay home more so we all remain sane. Young kids are no joke, and we are all happier when she is there to keep everything running along. She wants to work a little, and I'm fine with that, and I know she wants to go back to work more when the kids are in school full-time.
As others have said, it's a risk for both of us but it's one we're both fully committed to and willing to take on.
-
But second, it's because you agreed way back when to support each other in "good times and bad." Now you've come to the bad, you've decided to split and the state feels they shouldn't be left holding the bag supporting your ex (particularly after a lengthy marriage) by having them go on public assistance.
If "support each other in good times and bad" means that the support doesn't end at divorce does that mean I can ask the court to have the ex spouse support me as well? I need somebody to do all the domestic duties that are now unfulfilled if there's an expectation that I continue to support via holding a job.
And this is one of the reasons, that's why I support limited alimony.
SAHP: Gave up a certain sum of lifetime earnings - will start it at a longer rung on the ladder, giving up a permanent amount of career growth.
WP: Gives up a limited cash for a few years. Domestic duties now fully on WP.
Look, I'm not a SAHP. I don't have kids, I do have a career. I have no intentions of being a SAHP. I'd consider it, but DH has expressed more interest in it than me (but less aptitude for it, consider I do 90% of the domestic work now...). This discussion isn't about my life or whether I personally had a negative experience. But, this is how I feel things are fair. Clearly you disagree. As with all forums, some folks value things like money over other things. Some families here value time with kids or homecooked meals or clean houses or whatever else it is, and choose to have a stay at home spouse and I think it is MORE of a screw over to tell the non-working spouse that you get no time to find a job, no time to train for a job, instead jump back into a workforce you left long ago if you can, get a lesser paying job, never reach the same career heights (in the amount of time left for you to work), than it is to say to the working spouse that they have to support for a limited time. FWIW, I agree that permanent alimony, other than for a super long marriage, would skew things back in favor of the stay at home parent and screw over the working parent.
-
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
We are sort of in this situation except no kids, yet. My girlfriend works but hates her toxic environment working as a international tax accountant. She wants to change jobs but the thing is she badly needs to pass her CPA exams (yesteryear) to apply elsewhere and she has been unmotivated and lazy for two years! In those two years she took one month unpaid time off to just study and only passed one section! Two more remain and frankly she refuses to dedicate herself to helping her own situation by studying. As they say you cannot force anyone to anything to help themselves and such is our situation. A vicious cycle to say the least, and nothing will improve for her (regardless if I reach early retirement).
@ the pokercab: We can relate! You may feel like the bad person for encouraging, pushing, pulling her towards employment, but in the end, it will help create more balance in her life, focus, appreciation and purpose. Ultimately worse case, if one passes prematurely we feel the burden to raise the children should not be met under massive debts and one partner not even knowing how to stand on their own two feet.
-
I was divorced in 2008 after 23 years of marriage. When my spouse asked it was a complete shock but after a while I found that I could see the signs. I had just been blinding myself saying, "I am happily married, I am happily married" continuously. Right after our youngest child turned 18 my spouse announced "I want to be on my own before I get too old."
I had no problem at all with splitting our assets 50/50. We had both started with almost nothing and everything we built, we did together.
My spouse had been SAH for the last 10 years. Before we filed I asked about maintenance but my spouse said "No".
I hired a lawyer to do the paperwork. We could have done it ourselves but is was too emotionally draining for me. On my lawyer's recommendation I wound up giving my spouse around 60% of our assets and nearly 100% of the liquid assets to reduce the risk of my spouse coming back later asking for maintenance.
Previous posters have mentioned the emotional impact. I was devastated and an emotional wreck for a long time. But time heals if you let it. I focused on work and started volunteering extensively. There was an empty spot in my heart for years but eventually it filled in.
Was it a big financial hit? Of course! We were very close to FI at that time though we had not really thought about it that way. After the divorce, I had virtually no cash but still had my job (and the dog).
Fast forward 6 years and my post divorce NW has tripled, I am in a new stable relationship, and I am back to FI.
Not all stories are bad.
I am glad to hear that your life has recovered nicely Threshkin. I have to say that in my case, aside form what I consider was an unfair settlement, I will likewise be better off in the long run. I expect you are approaching finances in a much different manner in your new relationship. Am I correct? Did you remarry?
-
I am happily married with two kids, and my wife has been a SAHM for about 4 out of 7 years of our marriage. Our youngest child is about 13 months now, and she's been at home with him. Lately- i've been asking her about getting back into the workforce. She is actually in early childhood education and any job she gets is very likely to come with either free or reduced childcare- which would be big for us.
Anyway- she's been pushing back on me pretty hard, not wanting to go back to work. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of my job, so i'd love to accelerate our path to FIRE by adding in some more income into the household. But, she insists that she wouldn't be happy at work right now. I'll admit it is tough. At no point when we got married did we say that one of us would be a stay at home parent indefinitely. She wanted to stay at home for the first year for both of our kids, and I totally supported that. And i'd agree with folks that I was only able to reach my full earning potential with her at home taking primary care of the kids.
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
I'm trying to guess how would she feel working with young children while her own child is being watched by someone else? If she wants to be with him, that might be a really hard job to do. Instead, I would have her consider using her education at home. She could do an in-home preschool or daycare. I know a lady who makes $40K/year using a room in her basement for a preschool. Or she could tutor young readers after school. I also knew of a SAHM who put her energies into landscaping and gardening. They were moving every 3-5 years due to her hubby's work and they always sold their homes for $30-50K more because of her improvements. She gave garden tours and taught others what could be done on a small budget. There is also value in someone cooking from scratch, doing the house and yard work, running errands, etc. I'm back to working part time, and the whole family feels the difference when mom's not at everyone's beck and call.
-
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
We are in this situation except no kids, yet. My girlfriend works but she is in a toxic environment working as a international tax accountant. The thing is she badly needs to pass her CPA exams (yesteryear) to apply elsewhere and she has been unmotivated and lazy for two years! In those two years she took one month unpaid time off to just study and only passed one section! Two more remain and frankly she refuses to dedicate herself to helping her own situation by studying. As they say you cannot force anyone to anything to help themselves and such is our situation. I am changing jobs and looking to relocate as my four hour daily train/walking trip is killing me heart and soul.
erhm. Dare I say this might be one of those warning signs you'll look back on later?
-
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
We are in this situation except no kids, yet. My girlfriend works but she is in a toxic environment working as a international tax accountant. The thing is she badly needs to pass her CPA exams (yesteryear) to apply elsewhere and she has been unmotivated and lazy for two years! In those two years she took one month unpaid time off to just study and only passed one section! Two more remain and frankly she refuses to dedicate herself to helping her own situation by studying. As they say you cannot force anyone to anything to help themselves and such is our situation. I am changing jobs and looking to relocate as my four hour daily train/walking trip is killing me heart and soul.
erhm. Dare I say this might be one of those warning signs you'll look back on later?
Indeed. I am doing what I can to improve things within my control like changing my job to reduce the commute. However, I am exasperated when I hear stories about how one partner refuses to go back to work or basically take some personal accountability (like my gf refusal to study for her CPA exams) to improve their own reality. As for warning signs, yes, I concur and that is why I do not want to have kids and why we are not engaged. I love her dearly but frankly her actions currently do not match the words she says, namely her desire to change jobs, settle down and relocate. Only time will tell....
-
Anyway- she's been pushing back on me pretty hard, not wanting to go back to work. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of my job, so i'd love to accelerate our path to FIRE by adding in some more income into the household. But, she insists that she wouldn't be happy at work right now. I'll admit it is tough. At no point when we got married did we say that one of us would be a stay at home parent indefinitely. She wanted to stay at home for the first year for both of our kids, and I totally supported that. And i'd agree with folks that I was only able to reach my full earning potential with her at home taking primary care of the kids.
This is a situation that breeds contempt. She doesn't want to work because she wouldn't be happy? That would annoy me because it's not like you working is the greatest experience. FIRE is a goal for a reason. I don't think it is unreasonable to get your spouse to contribute income as well as time, just as you do.
Spouses going in the same direction get to goals faster. Spouses going in different directions make little progress but generate lots of frustration.
-
@ Beridian, Frankling and DoubleDown: Reading your stories really opens ones eyes to how difficult divorce can be and some of the serious financial implications. Thank you all for sharing. Got some questions for you any anyone else if you don't mind sharing your ideas.
1) If you had a pre-nup where you bring in more assets than your partner prior to marriage, wouldn't that be sufficient to protect your assets (especially if you kept your finances separate)?
2) Would putting your assets into trusts help protect you?
3) Don't quite understand how or why 401k and IRA accounts should be split especially if one party can prove X amount was saved prior to the marriage. Any thoughts on this?
4) We have a friend whose wife is the same as your ex, she got fired and now refuses to work; he alone works and pays for everything. He won't divorce her (almost in his 70s) and is constantly living a life of stress and desperation. Really feel for him and but there just isn't a support from her and we feel terrible for him. Big IF they divorced why wouldn't Courts consider her lack of contribution/employment (she is perfect able but chooses not to) especially if there are no children? You mentioned some reasons in your earlier posts, but wonder isn't there some level of responsibility that both parties need to exhibit?
5) How do inheritances factor in divorce? Say the husband gets one before the divorce or after, won't that still be split?
My experienced answers from a community property state:
1. Pre-nups help with pre-marital assets but keep those assets separate (don't co-mingle)
2. Trust should be helpful, but be hands off. Have a trustee handle the decisions and don't touch or be involved. Don't want the argument that you seized an opportunity (investment, business) with separate funds but avoided using marital assets.
3. The tax-advantaged accounts same as other assets. You would calculate the value at date of marriage and the value at date of filing. Difference is marital property (interest on initial balance may also be calculated but this is the simple answer).
4. Short answer: No, doesn't matter why wife isn't employed. The fact is husband is employed and wife isn't.
5. Inheritance is separate property as long as it is kept separate. (Again, don't co-mingle).
-
They still do in NJ: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
These cases come up all the time. If you look into the details, they are all messy divorces where guy is trying to be vindicative and don't pay any of their court ordered payment. In a year or two of non payment, a judgement is rendered agains them. Their payments get increased and they whine they can't afford to pay anymore. And then the men's right press talk about how the courts set the alimony at more money than the guy makes.
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN. You choose to have them (have sex, particularly while not wearing protection or getting sterilized etc) and yes, the state can force you to work to support them rather than walking away. Because the law thinks they need protection because a 4 yo can't take care of herself.
People can rack up many thousands of dollars before I've seen incarceration threatened. The one I mentioned above had gotten over $100k.
To be specific, I am refering to alimony, not child support. I'll let you reformulate your response.
Because of all of the reasons already put forth in this thread. First, I'm not actually clear whether they do put people in jail for failure to pay alimony - I only know for sure that they do for child support. But second, it's because you agreed way back when to support each other in "good times and bad." Now you've come to the bad, you've decided to split and the state feels they shouldn't be left holding the bag supporting your ex (particularly after a lengthy marriage) by having them go on public assistance.
-
They still do in NJ: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
These cases come up all the time. If you look into the details, they are all messy divorces where guy is trying to be vindicative and don't pay any of their court ordered payment. In a year or two of non payment, a judgement is rendered agains them. Their payments get increased and they whine they can't afford to pay anymore. And then the men's right press talk about how the courts set the alimony at more money than the guy makes.
You are legally obligated to SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN. You choose to have them (have sex, particularly while not wearing protection or getting sterilized etc) and yes, the state can force you to work to support them rather than walking away. Because the law thinks they need protection because a 4 yo can't take care of herself.
People can rack up many thousands of dollars before I've seen incarceration threatened. The one I mentioned above had gotten over $100k.
To be specific, I am refering to alimony, not child support. I'll let you reformulate your response.
Because of all of the reasons already put forth in this thread. First, I'm not actually clear whether they do put people in jail for failure to pay alimony - I only know for sure that they do for child support. But second, it's because you agreed way back when to support each other in "good times and bad." Now you've come to the bad, you've decided to split and the state feels they shouldn't be left holding the bag supporting your ex (particularly after a lengthy marriage) by having them go on public assistance.
Ok. Another reason is that the courts don't take it kindly when people disregard their orders. They take a very dim view of this flaunting of their authority, leading to concerns of whether that can undermine the system.
-
I was divorced in 2008 after 23 years of marriage. When my spouse asked it was a complete shock but after a while I found that I could see the signs. I had just been blinding myself saying, "I am happily married, I am happily married" continuously. Right after our youngest child turned 18 my spouse announced "I want to be on my own before I get too old."
I had no problem at all with splitting our assets 50/50. We had both started with almost nothing and everything we built, we did together.
My spouse had been SAH for the last 10 years. Before we filed I asked about maintenance but my spouse said "No".
I hired a lawyer to do the paperwork. We could have done it ourselves but is was too emotionally draining for me. On my lawyer's recommendation I wound up giving my spouse around 60% of our assets and nearly 100% of the liquid assets to reduce the risk of my spouse coming back later asking for maintenance.
Previous posters have mentioned the emotional impact. I was devastated and an emotional wreck for a long time. But time heals if you let it. I focused on work and started volunteering extensively. There was an empty spot in my heart for years but eventually it filled in.
Was it a big financial hit? Of course! We were very close to FI at that time though we had not really thought about it that way. After the divorce, I had virtually no cash but still had my job (and the dog).
Fast forward 6 years and my post divorce NW has tripled, I am in a new stable relationship, and I am back to FI.
Not all stories are bad.
Threshkin thats a good story and a testament to healing yourself slowly, that must have been devastating. We also have events like the BP oil spill, Bernie Madoff, the housing crash (people having principal amounts reduced or loan modifications). In these cases the results to are also emotionally and financially devastating and the courts say the victims can make claims for fraud, negligence, misrepresentation etc. In the case of domestic divorce events, when in your case the spouse announces out of the blue (scary!) or chooses another partner etc. it seems there is no recourse.
-
Maybe the bigger question is "why do women feel they are supposed to stay at home and give up their careers?"
I've always wondered this. My parents both worked full time raising 5 kids and my mom has said that she feels she is a much better mother because of it (and I think I personally would go batshit crazy if I had to be around my theoretical kids all the time).
As to MayDay- most people here agree that splitting assets is reasonable. I think the ones that don't had other issues with their marriage/divorce having more to do with the spouse than the splitting of assets. And I can understand temporary alimony when everyone agrees to the SAHP situation but I hear too many horror stories of people cheating the system (and thus cheating the ex) just to be spiteful and to get more money (ie. not getting remarried soley to continue recieving alimony). And since I haven't actually known anyone to pay or recieve alimony these stories are what I base my admittely uninformed initial reaction on. And I did say "get away from it" not "get rid of it" since I'm sure there are situations that warrant it.
I do want to add though: you said he should pay temporary alimony since it was a joint decision and he knew what he was getting into...I see it more on the other end (again, probably because I spent most of my life in a state that does not do alimony so I never saw it as an option) that it was a joint decision for you to leave the work force so you knew what you were getting into
Right, but even if he pays me alimony for a couple years. I still will never reach the level of income I would have had if I had worked those 20 years. So a few years of alimony isn't intended to make up 20 years of career growth, it is intended to get the SAH spouse "a" job. I absolutely took a huge risk staying at home, and I know it. The point is that it is a joint risk.
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't this the choice people make when they have children? They have to sacrifice a lot. None of us are "owed" the right to return the workplace for the same pay as someone who continued to work, so why should the courts pretend the Stay-at-home parent should be receiving the same salary as if they were still working? It's hard to say "I want my cake (kids) and eat it too (valued at the same salary)." Actually, this issue is really a middle class/upper class issue. Most of the famlies I knew growing up, both parents had to work. There was no choice financially. There were very few "housewives" who stayed home.
Right, but my point is that it should be a joint risk.
My risk is that we get divorced I have little to no earning potential, and I get a few years of alimony to get a job at will definitely be lower in salary than if I had worked the whole time.
His risk is that we get divorced, and he has to pay me alimony for a few years.
Both of us benefitted from me staying home all those years.
OK so it is a joint risk, but what if you had no say so in the divorce? What if it was forced upon you?
Lets say my spouse and I agree that one parent stays at home. Fine, we agree, I am to be the breadwinner and my spouse is the homemaker. Its a contract of sorts (as is the marriage). Now my spouse decides they want out. I am still keeping up my end of the contract, I am supporting everybody, I did not break my contract, my spouse did. So is it then fair that I am required to pay alimony to my spouse? The divorce was my spouse's decision alone, I was not an equal partner in that decision, it was unilaterally made by my spouse. I was an equal partner in the marriage decision and the stay at home parent decision.
You will likely say it depends on the circumstances which is reasonable. If I were abusive towards my spouse I would have some liability. If my spouse on the other hand found someone else that they liked better, then I should not be held responsible, after all I upheld my end of the bargain. The problem is that the courts do not want to hear the reason, they just look at the numbers. Can you see the injustice in that?
I see absolutely no injustice. [Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed.] Getting married is a joint decision, but getting divorced isn't. File that little fact under "risks you take when you get married".
-
They still do in NJ: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
These cases come up all the time. If you look into the details, they are all messy divorces where guy is trying to be vindicative and don't pay any of their court ordered payment. In a year or two of non payment, a judgement is rendered agains them. Their payments get increased and they whine they can't afford to pay anymore. And then the men's right press talk about how the courts set the alimony at more money than the guy makes.
Nothing in that link provides evidence that the husband is being vindictive. Even if we go with his highest ever income: 147K, why should he be paying his ex 70% of his income? That's outrageous. I don't see how alimony should ever be more than 50%.
-
I am glad to hear that your life has recovered nicely Threshkin. I have to say that in my case, aside form what I consider was an unfair settlement, I will likewise be better off in the long run. I expect you are approaching finances in a much different manner in your new relationship. Am I correct? Did you remarry?
Actually I remarried with no preconditions and with my eyes wide open to the risks. IMO getting married is a joint commitment to share and care equally, without reservations. My SO came into the relationship with assets, a job, and a savings ethic that is as good if not better than mine. My SO also has an abusive Ex who is constantly re-litigating their divorce and custody agreements. We are in court every couple of months to deal with another motion filed by the Ex and the two minor children are now estranged from my SO.
I accepted this when I entered the relationship and fully support my SO in this, emotionally and financially. This is what a committed relationship is all about. I believe you are either completely committed or you are not committed at all.
-
I think that's a little harsh MayDay. The guy has just had is ex get one over him and screwed him big time and you think it's fine that the court forces him to support his ex as if they were still married?
Appreciate the intention behind alimony, but there are some cases where I feel it is not deserved.
Basically if you fuck someone else and divorce is a consequence, I find it wholly unreasonable that it is incumbent on the other spouse (of whatever gender) to keep supporting you.
#my 2c
-
@ Beridian, Frankling and DoubleDown: Reading your stories really opens ones eyes to how difficult divorce can be and some of the serious financial implications. Thank you all for sharing. Got some questions for you any anyone else if you don't mind sharing your ideas.
1) If you had a pre-nup where you bring in more assets than your partner prior to marriage, wouldn't that be sufficient to protect your assets (especially if you kept your finances separate)?
2) Would putting your assets into trusts help protect you?
3) Don't quite understand how or why 401k and IRA accounts should be split especially if one party can prove X amount was saved prior to the marriage. Any thoughts on this?
4) We have a friend whose wife is the same as your ex, she got fired and now refuses to work; he alone works and pays for everything. He won't divorce her (almost in his 70s) and is constantly living a life of stress and desperation. Really feel for him and but there just isn't a support from her and we feel terrible for him. Big IF they divorced why wouldn't Courts consider her lack of contribution/employment (she is perfect able but chooses not to) especially if there are no children? You mentioned some reasons in your earlier posts, but wonder isn't there some level of responsibility that both parties need to exhibit?
5) How do inheritances factor in divorce? Say the husband gets one before the divorce or after, won't that still be split?
My experienced answers from a community property state:
1. Pre-nups help with pre-marital assets but keep those assets separate (don't co-mingle)
2. Trust should be helpful, but be hands off. Have a trustee handle the decisions and don't touch or be involved. Don't want the argument that you seized an opportunity (investment, business) with separate funds but avoided using marital assets.
3. The tax-advantaged accounts same as other assets. You would calculate the value at date of marriage and the value at date of filing. Difference is marital property (interest on initial balance may also be calculated but this is the simple answer).
4. Short answer: No, doesn't matter why wife isn't employed. The fact is husband is employed and wife isn't.
5. Inheritance is separate property as long as it is kept separate. (Again, don't co-mingle).
@ LDoon. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. We are in California also a community property state. Wondering if trusts need to be hands off, how does one spouse access/draw on those funds in retirement situations? Based on our research it seems like one would need the assistance of the attorney correct?
-
I think that's a little harsh MayDay. The guy has just had is ex get one over him and screwed him big time and you think it's fine that the court forces him to support his ex as if they were still married?
Appreciate the intention behind alimony, but there are some cases where I feel it is not deserved.
Basically if you fuck someone else and divorce is a consequence, I find it wholly unreasonable that it is incumbent on the other spouse (of whatever gender) to keep supporting you.
#my 2c
To clarify, I think the "I had no say in the divorce, I held up my end of the cintract" is the nonsense. He comes off as sounding like as long as he brings in the income, she should have stayed married to him.
Maybe his wife is a total bitch who took him to the cleaners, or maybe he was a crap husband and she wanted to leave for years. We have no idea. I don't care either! All I am side-eyeing is the idea that divorce should be a joint decision, that the marriage contract precludes one spouse from deciding to leave.
-
This has been a lot of really interesting discussion.
I do definitely see non-working spouses putting in a ton of work at home, keeping money in the household, and "investing" in the other's career by helping their partner reach their full potential. I know a lot of musicians and if one person gets a job in a prestigious orchestra then, by god, they are moving to where that orchestra is. The other spouse finds a new job, but essentially their career takes a back seat.
The thing is, if your finances are unequal, then it seems you believe you're compensated in other areas, otherwise you wouldn't stay, no? So while you may believe your spouse has failed to pull their weight in the past few years and that's why you want a divorce, all the time before that they were equally contributing, so why wouldn't they get an equal share of the results of that.
All that said, I'm worried about it in my own situation. My spouse and I earn equally but I'm saving like crazy with the goal of FI, and they barely save at all. I don't feel used by any means. We've agreed on certain things, most notably housing, that gives us low fixed expenses, so that's a benefit to me (but equally a benefit to them). I've offered to pay their students loans but been refused. However, if we divorced today, the assets would be all mine, and it doesn't really make sense that they would be split 50/50 when I've been saving towards a goal but they've preferred to eat out all the time.
-
@ Beridian, Frankling and DoubleDown: Reading your stories really opens ones eyes to how difficult divorce can be and some of the serious financial implications. Thank you all for sharing. Got some questions for you any anyone else if you don't mind sharing your ideas.
1) If you had a pre-nup where you bring in more assets than your partner prior to marriage, wouldn't that be sufficient to protect your assets (especially if you kept your finances separate)?
2) Would putting your assets into trusts help protect you?
3) Don't quite understand how or why 401k and IRA accounts should be split especially if one party can prove X amount was saved prior to the marriage. Any thoughts on this?
4) We have a friend whose wife is the same as your ex, she got fired and now refuses to work; he alone works and pays for everything. He won't divorce her (almost in his 70s) and is constantly living a life of stress and desperation. Really feel for him and but there just isn't a support from her and we feel terrible for him. Big IF they divorced why wouldn't Courts consider her lack of contribution/employment (she is perfect able but chooses not to) especially if there are no children? You mentioned some reasons in your earlier posts, but wonder isn't there some level of responsibility that both parties need to exhibit?
5) How do inheritances factor in divorce? Say the husband gets one before the divorce or after, won't that still be split?
My experienced answers from a community property state:
1. Pre-nups help with pre-marital assets but keep those assets separate (don't co-mingle)
2. Trust should be helpful, but be hands off. Have a trustee handle the decisions and don't touch or be involved. Don't want the argument that you seized an opportunity (investment, business) with separate funds but avoided using marital assets.
3. The tax-advantaged accounts same as other assets. You would calculate the value at date of marriage and the value at date of filing. Difference is marital property (interest on initial balance may also be calculated but this is the simple answer).
4. Short answer: No, doesn't matter why wife isn't employed. The fact is husband is employed and wife isn't.
5. Inheritance is separate property as long as it is kept separate. (Again, don't co-mingle).
@ LDoon. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. We are in California also a community property state. Wondering if trusts need to be hands off, how does one spouse access/draw on those funds in retirement situations? Based on our research it seems like one would need the assistance of the attorney correct?
Definitely have an attorney prepare the trust. If it's done wrong there could be tax issues and defeat the purpose of remaining separate property. Regarding accessing funds, you would still be the beneficiary (and hence receive the payouts). The benefits (I believe) would be considered community property once mingled, but the trust (i.e., principal) remains separate. Also, there are numerous types of trusts (revocable, irrevocable, discretionary, preset benefits, etc). If you're interested, do some research before meeting with an attorney, understand the basics and the terms, and whether this might fit for you.
-
@sheepstache
All that said, I'm worried about it in my own situation. My spouse and I earn equally but I'm saving like crazy with the goal of FI, and they barely save at all. I don't feel used by any means. We've agreed on certain things, most notably housing, that gives us low fixed expenses, so that's a benefit to me (but equally a benefit to them). I've offered to pay their students loans but been refused. However, if we divorced today, the assets would be all mine, and it doesn't really make sense that they would be split 50/50 when I've been saving towards a goal but they've preferred to eat out all the time.
I think this part loops back around to the discussion typically brought up in many threads as to why it is important to find a SO with mutual beliefs / opinions. It also hits the point of why some people are against marriage, or feel unfairly treated in a divorce. In the court system, it doesn't matter that your spouse spends and enjoys her money. If you get divorced, she'll get the enjoyment of eating out all the time AND half the savings. Common goals and common beliefs are so important to a healthy relationship. As you note, even thinking about it makes you worried.
-
I think that's a little harsh MayDay. The guy has just had is ex get one over him and screwed him big time and you think it's fine that the court forces him to support his ex as if they were still married?
Appreciate the intention behind alimony, but there are some cases where I feel it is not deserved.
Basically if you fuck someone else and divorce is a consequence, I find it wholly unreasonable that it is incumbent on the other spouse (of whatever gender) to keep supporting you.
#my 2c
To clarify, I think the "I had no say in the divorce, I held up my end of the cintract" is the nonsense. He comes off as sounding like as long as he brings in the income, she should have stayed married to him.
Maybe his wife is a total bitch who took him to the cleaners, or maybe he was a crap husband and she wanted to leave for years. We have no idea. I don't care either! All I am side-eyeing is the idea that divorce should be a joint decision, that the marriage contract precludes one spouse from deciding to leave.
I actually interpreted his remarks differently, hence the different response. I don't think he is saying she should have stayed married to him because he brings in the income. His point is that she has chosen to leave, so why should she take half AND he keeps supporting her.
But fair point, there are 2 sides to every story and we are only hearing one.
Courts/system isn't perfect, everyone acknowledges that. Lots of room to improve it, however courts are trying to apply a logical reasonable split of assets devoid of emotion at a time when people are at their most emotional, illogical and unreasonable selves.
-
OK so it is a joint risk, but what if you had no say so in the divorce? What if it was forced upon you?
Lets say my spouse and I agree that one parent stays at home. Fine, we agree, I am to be the breadwinner and my spouse is the homemaker. Its a contract of sorts (as is the marriage). Now my spouse decides they want out. I am still keeping up my end of the contract, I am supporting everybody, I did not break my contract, my spouse did. So is it then fair that I am required to pay alimony to my spouse? The divorce was my spouse's decision alone, I was not an equal partner in that decision, it was unilaterally made by my spouse. I was an equal partner in the marriage decision and the stay at home parent decision.
You will likely say it depends on the circumstances which is reasonable. If I were abusive towards my spouse I would have some liability. If my spouse on the other hand found someone else that they liked better, then I should not be held responsible, after all I upheld my end of the bargain. The problem is that the courts do not want to hear the reason, they just look at the numbers. Can you see the injustice in that?
Excellent point!
-
I'm no sociologist, but I am a woman and I can't imagine giving up all my financial autonomy to stay at home. I think psychologically it puts you in a vulnerable position. I would at least want to bring half the income in or get out of the house for that matter. In this modern day, where a lot of people get divorced, it seems like a new family model should develop. People tend to fall back on believing "he can make more money, therefore he should be the bread winner"(why not have mom work and live on less?) or "there are no part time jobs so each parent cannot work part time" (Yes there are if you look for them)
I truly believe in living your priorities. Most things are possible if people are willing to live on less. We don't need to resort to what we are told to believe. We don't have to spend a ton of money on cars, houses and Christmas. MMM is perfect example of that. I'm sure he had 100's of people telling him he could not do what he is doing. That's why I think he's a great example of what a dad can do.
Imagine growing up with your dad at home. How wonderful!
-
You can google the case to get the wife's/judges point of view which was pretty much
a) He was making 200k/yr but he quit in order not to make payments. There are some questions of the tax returns
b) He dragged out the lawsuit for 5 years and ran up a 100k lawyer bill be that he didn't pay. I am guessing the wife helped out:)
c) He never paid the 3300 (some places have this per year others have it per month. both seem odd) any of the child support
d) he then tried to file for bankruptcy
e) didn't maintain health insurance or pay his son's medical bills
f) supposedly did some asset hiding and went to Guatemala
and so on. It was a very entertaining case to follow.
For fun read this thread: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/state_supreme_court_order_lays.html and look for the posts by toleeward52 who is supposedly our dude.
What the truth? I tend to side a bit more with the judge (who has a heck of a lot more details than we do) than groups with political agenda but I will not pretend that is anything other than a guess. I feel pretty comfortable saying though that when every you see an article like this, that it is a heck of a lot more complicated than a judge deciding that some guy should pay more than his salary to his wife.
They still do in NJ: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
These cases come up all the time. If you look into the details, they are all messy divorces where guy is trying to be vindicative and don't pay any of their court ordered payment. In a year or two of non payment, a judgement is rendered agains them. Their payments get increased and they whine they can't afford to pay anymore. And then the men's right press talk about how the courts set the alimony at more money than the guy makes.
Nothing in that link provides evidence that the husband is being vindictive. Even if we go with his highest ever income: 147K, why should he be paying his ex 70% of his income? That's outrageous. I don't see how alimony should ever be more than 50%.
-
Re b, sounds like he got rid his lawyer and filed an excessive amount of motions then on his own that the wife had to respond to. A lawyer who files frivolously can get in trouble. Looks like the judge imposed costs in him in response.
-
I think that's a little harsh MayDay. The guy has just had is ex get one over him and screwed him big time and you think it's fine that the court forces him to support his ex as if they were still married?
Appreciate the intention behind alimony, but there are some cases where I feel it is not deserved.
Basically if you fuck someone else and divorce is a consequence, I find it wholly unreasonable that it is incumbent on the other spouse (of whatever gender) to keep supporting you.
#my 2c
To clarify, I think the "I had no say in the divorce, I held up my end of the cintract" is the nonsense. He comes off as sounding like as long as he brings in the income, she should have stayed married to him.
Maybe his wife is a total bitch who took him to the cleaners, or maybe he was a crap husband and she wanted to leave for years. We have no idea. I don't care either! All I am side-eyeing is the idea that divorce should be a joint decision, that the marriage contract precludes one spouse from deciding to leave.
Sometimes its easy to misconstrue things written on internet forums. I never meant to imply that since I bring home the bacon she should stay married to me. Anyone is free to leave a relationship whenever they deem it necessary. What I was trying to convey is that it was her decision to leave, and apart from misconduct on my part I should not be forced to finance her new life when the decision was entirely her own. I look at it like breaking a contract. When you break a contract (without just cause) I think it is wrong to then penalize the other party in the contract for your decision to back out. And I am not talking about a fair property settlement or child support, I am talking about alimony.
It would be like attending school at a certain university with a scholarship, You then later decide this school sucks and want to transfer to another university, but you demand that the first school pay your tuition at the new school. The first school did nothing wrong and was willing to continue your education. It was your decision to transfer. Maybe the first school does suck, but at some point in the past you found it acceptable enough to attend. Its fine if you want to transfer, just don't expect the first school to continue the scholarship agreement (that you broke) at a different school. That's the best analogy i can think of.
-
Sometimes its easy to misconstrue things written on internet forums. I never meant to imply that since I bring home the bacon she should stay married to me. Anyone is free to leave a relationship whenever they deem it necessary. What I was trying to convey is that it was her decision to leave, and apart from misconduct on my part I should not be forced to finance her new life when the decision was entirely her own. I look at it like breaking a contract. When you break a contract (without just cause) I think it is wrong to then penalize the other party in the contract for your decision to back out. And I am not talking about a fair property settlement or child support, I am talking about alimony.
It would be like attending school at a certain university with a scholarship, You then later decide this school sucks and want to transfer to another university, but you demand that the first school pay your tuition at the new school. The first school did nothing wrong and was willing to continue your education. It was your decision to transfer. Maybe the first school does suck, but at some point in the past you found it acceptable enough to attend. Its fine if you want to transfer, just don't expect the first school to continue the scholarship agreement (that you broke) at a different school. That's the best analogy i can think of.
Unfortunately.. That "without just cause" is really had to define in a marriage.
-
I got a divorce, my ex-husband became an alcoholic and basically abandoned a pretty successful business. I was fortunate in a sense, because in the two years leading up to everything hitting the fan I saved money like a banshee because I knew we were going to be in crisis, eventually. So, when he finally totally freaked out (after numerous trips to detox and rehab) and started running up our credit cards staying in $300 a night hotels, I filed for divorce, moved $30k out of our joint bank account, hired a lawyer, sold the house (had to bring $10k to closing) and basically started "Operation Dirvorce". Lest anyone think I was living high on the hog with the money I got, I had to pay off both of our cars to get out of the loans, moving fees, and a $7000k credit card balance he had run up to get out of a joint card as well. So, I didn't have any of the money left, but I did get out of my divorce debt free, so I was proud of that.
Now I work, and my ex doesn't. He does not pay child support for our two young kids and lives with a girlfriend who gets disability payments. I am extremely fortunate in that his parents are angels from heaven and help me and the kids tremendously with child care, etc. Life is so much better even though the years around the divorce were extremely rocky. I don't think I'll ever marry again, not that I think all men are evil by any means, I just don't want to be that financially vulnerable ever again.
-
I got a divorce, my ex-husband became an alcoholic and basically abandoned a pretty successful business. I was fortunate in a sense, because in the two years leading up to everything hitting the fan I saved money like a banshee because I knew we were going to be in crisis, eventually. So, when he finally totally freaked out (after numerous trips to detox and rehab) and started running up our credit cards staying in $300 a night hotels, I filed for divorce, moved $30k out of our joint bank account, hired a lawyer, sold the house (had to bring $10k to closing) and basically started "Operation Dirvorce". Lest anyone think I was living high on the hog with the money I got, I had to pay off both of our cars to get out of the loans, moving fees, and a $7000k credit card balance he had run up to get out of a joint card as well. So, I didn't have any of the money left, but I did get out of my divorce debt free, so I was proud of that.
Now I work, and my ex doesn't. He does not pay child support for our two young kids and lives with a girlfriend who gets disability payments. I am extremely fortunate in that his parents are angels from heaven and help me and the kids tremendously with child care, etc. Life is so much better even though the years around the divorce were extremely rocky. I don't think I'll ever marry again, not that I think all men are evil by any means, I just don't want to be that financially vulnerable ever again.
If you don't mind me asking...I'm always curious how people end up marrying into a situation like this where they missed all the warning signs. Did you pick it up early on that this person was irresponsible and had addictions? This person sounds like a real loser, but I'm sure when you married him you thought he was great. I'm not passing judgement on you. I'm just curious in terms of advice you might give to others on "what to watch out for" before you marry someone. Knowing this might prevent others from going through such financial hardships.
-
I love it when people who get or got divorced say "she took half of MY net worth" when really, far more often than not, she only took her half of what the two of you accumulated together while married.
This. Reminds me of when men talk of "babysitting" their own children.
That all said, my friend (a woman--gasp!) has to pay alimony to her deadbeat ex. He had a high-paying job and gave it up after they got married. Since he never bothered to get another job, my friend has to pay alimony to him at least until their very young child is 18. Another 9-10 years. And the child doesn't live with the dad either. So, the money goes to support the ex's life with his new girlfriend.
I would need some serious therapy to get through the above situation.
This happened to me too. EX lost his business and racked up tons of debt. He never worked again even though He thought about going to college and me encouraging him. He was a SAHP but only for 5% of our marriage. The rest of the time he refused to do much work. The children with with me and I pay for most of their clothing, supplies, etc. it's supposed to be 50/50 but he always claims poverty. He got alimony (which I negotiated down time-wise for extra assets) and 20% of my salary in child support. It is a calculation and since I made so much more I had to pay a lot.
Ex was a spend thrift so I am better off now financially but a limited to what I can save. When married we were always broke but I have been able to save so much even with the obligations.
Sometimes I wish I could switch to another field that was more flexible to spend more time at home but I couldn't afford the pay cut and have any chance at FIRE or even FU money without my higher paying job. From what I understand, since I can make x at the higher paying profession, I'll always be assessed that.
-
I got a divorce, my ex-husband became an alcoholic and basically abandoned a pretty successful business. I was fortunate in a sense, because in the two years leading up to everything hitting the fan I saved money like a banshee because I knew we were going to be in crisis, eventually. So, when he finally totally freaked out (after numerous trips to detox and rehab) and started running up our credit cards staying in $300 a night hotels, I filed for divorce, moved $30k out of our joint bank account, hired a lawyer, sold the house (had to bring $10k to closing) and basically started "Operation Dirvorce". Lest anyone think I was living high on the hog with the money I got, I had to pay off both of our cars to get out of the loans, moving fees, and a $7000k credit card balance he had run up to get out of a joint card as well. So, I didn't have any of the money left, but I did get out of my divorce debt free, so I was proud of that.
Now I work, and my ex doesn't. He does not pay child support for our two young kids and lives with a girlfriend who gets disability payments. I am extremely fortunate in that his parents are angels from heaven and help me and the kids tremendously with child care, etc. Life is so much better even though the years around the divorce were extremely rocky. I don't think I'll ever marry again, not that I think all men are evil by any means, I just don't want to be that financially vulnerable ever again.
If you don't mind me asking...I'm always curious how people end up marrying into a situation like this where they missed all the warning signs. Did you pick it up early on that this person was irresponsible and had addictions? This person sounds like a real loser, but I'm sure when you married him you thought he was great. I'm not passing judgement on you. I'm just curious in terms of advice you might give to others on "what to watch out for" before you marry someone. Knowing this might prevent others from going through such financial hardships.
I'm not the op and I'm not even married but I watched my parents marriage strain when my father became an alcoholic so I have an outsiders opinion on this. My father is a pretty great guy, when he's sober and he was sober for the first 20yrs or so of their marriage. He worked hard, had a side hustle fun job on the weekends, did the 'man' chores around the house, played games and did stuff with me. Then he started having problems at work because of a new owner and he started having a drink at night to deal with the stress. Over time, that nightly drink became a couple and then several and then half a bottle of vodka. It really was a case of him turning into a completely different person than the man my mom married and I grew up with as a small kid. Sometimes people don't marry into a bad situation, the bad situation evolves over time a you wake up one day and realize this is not normal and this sucks and it's time to do something about it.
-
I have to say this thread is scaring the crap out of me! I have been married for 20 years and believe we have a strong marriage, but yes, things can change. My husband is on a nine-month assignment in Australia and while he was gone, two of his retirement accounts went to a zero balance (from about 98K). My first thought was, "Is he syphoning off money because he's met someone in Australia and is planning on leaving me?" It was a fleeting thought, and luckily was not the case (his firm stopped offering a certain type of retirement account and transferred the balances to other accounts), but to think it can never happen to you is naive. Even strong marriages can fall apart, though there is usually some advance notice.
There are often red flags early in relationships that people tend to ignore because of those rose-colored glasses handed out so freely by Love. My parents talked to us early and often about the importance of marriage, what made someone marriage material, that one doesn't "fall" in love, you can have influence over your emotions, etc. So even at 22, I knew enough to find out certain things about DH: had he ever been with someone while in another relationship, did he have any debt, family history of divorce and substance abuse. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, so I learned as much as possible about his past and we also talked a lot about the future, recognizing that shared values and a vision of our future were important. Not that this guarantees a successful marriage (it ain't over yet, folks!), but it does bring to light some risks that you can either knowingly take or walk away from.
If you are unsure of whether or not your current BF/GF/spouse is good for you, your friends and family (assuming they're not completely dysfunctional) can probably tell you. Research has shown that friends and family are much better at predicting the long-term success of a relationship than the people in it are.
Now excuse me while I go tell my DH how awesome he is and that I hope he never changes!
-
We are in this situation except no kids, yet. My girlfriend works but she is in a toxic environment working as a international tax accountant. The thing is she badly needs to pass her CPA exams (yesteryear) to apply elsewhere and she has been unmotivated and lazy for two years! In those two years she took one month unpaid time off to just study and only passed one section! Two more remain and frankly she refuses to dedicate herself to helping her own situation by studying. As they say you cannot force anyone to anything to help themselves and such is our situation. I am changing jobs and looking to relocate as my four hour daily train/walking trip is killing me heart and soul.
erhm. Dare I say this might be one of those warning signs you'll look back on later?
Indeed. I am doing what I can to improve things within my control like changing my job to reduce the commute. However, I am exasperated when I hear stories about how one partner refuses to go back to work or basically take some personal accountability (like my gf refusal to study for her CPA exams) to improve their own reality. As for warning signs, yes, I concur and that is why I do not want to have kids and why we are not engaged. I love her dearly but frankly her actions currently do not match the words she says, namely her desire to change jobs, settle down and relocate. Only time will tell....
It sounds like your girlfriend is depressed, so I hope she is doing something to address that. Having an awful job can suck the life and will out of a person. Some outside help might enable her to turn those words into actions.
On the other hand, your comment about not wanting kids jumped out at me. I never wanted kids, for a whole host of reasons, and I think that lead to me devaluing reliability and maturity as important qualities in my first husband. I knew that he wasn't mature enough to take care of a child, but I thought I didn't need him to be. I could take care of myself, surely he could at least take care of himself, so we would take care of ourselves together, right? Wrong. Laughably wrong. It is shocking to what extent another person can wreck your life despite all of your best efforts. Picture one of those skiers in ski cross who gets clipped by someone else and wipes out in spectacular fashion. That was me. If you think that someone is too unreliable and immature to be a parent, they might also be too unreliable and immature to be a serious partner.</doomandgloom>
-
And this is one of the reasons, that's why I support limited alimony.
SAHP: Gave up a certain sum of lifetime earnings - will start it at a longer rung on the ladder, giving up a permanent amount of career growth.
WP: Gives up a limited cash for a few years. Domestic duties now fully on WP.
Look, I'm not a SAHP. I don't have kids, I do have a career. I have no intentions of being a SAHP. I'd consider it, but DH has expressed more interest in it than me (but less aptitude for it, consider I do 90% of the domestic work now...). This discussion isn't about my life or whether I personally had a negative experience. But, this is how I feel things are fair. Clearly you disagree. As with all forums, some folks value things like money over other things. Some families here value time with kids or homecooked meals or clean houses or whatever else it is, and choose to have a stay at home spouse and I think it is MORE of a screw over to tell the non-working spouse that you get no time to find a job, no time to train for a job, instead jump back into a workforce you left long ago if you can, get a lesser paying job, never reach the same career heights (in the amount of time left for you to work), than it is to say to the working spouse that they have to support for a limited time. FWIW, I agree that permanent alimony, other than for a super long marriage, would skew things back in favor of the stay at home parent and screw over the working parent.
Except you don't just give up cash, you give up freedom.
The thing is, if the homemaker brings value to a relationship, and courts are attempting to divide value and award it to the other person to compensate for that loss in coming years, then the homemaker should also be expected to provide something if the person bringing in the money is expected to keep financing the other person's existence.
Because I firmly believe that my wife, who stays at home, very much adds value to our relationship through the work that she does, if it is expected that I continue to provide for her on divorce then I feel like it is fair to expect her to continue to provide a portion of the services she provided in the past. A court order for her to spend a couple of hours a week doing my laundry or cleaning my home is no different than a court order that requires someone to work XX number of hours a week to fund the other's existence. If not that, then the WP is getting hit with a double-whammy, not only do they have to spend extra time working (freedom lost) to fund another person's existence, but they also have to spend extra time working to replace the lost labor in their own home (even more freedom lost).
I understand that doing the laundry doesn't pay the bills. But there's an extremely strong chance that doing so for whatever amount one is receiving in alimony payments would make anyone a very well paid clothes washer.
-
I am happily married with two kids, and my wife has been a SAHM for about 4 out of 7 years of our marriage. Our youngest child is about 13 months now, and she's been at home with him. Lately- i've been asking her about getting back into the workforce. She is actually in early childhood education and any job she gets is very likely to come with either free or reduced childcare- which would be big for us.
Anyway- she's been pushing back on me pretty hard, not wanting to go back to work. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of my job, so i'd love to accelerate our path to FIRE by adding in some more income into the household. But, she insists that she wouldn't be happy at work right now. I'll admit it is tough. At no point when we got married did we say that one of us would be a stay at home parent indefinitely. She wanted to stay at home for the first year for both of our kids, and I totally supported that. And i'd agree with folks that I was only able to reach my full earning potential with her at home taking primary care of the kids.
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
Hey pokercab,
I just wanted to share my perspective on your situation. I am a stay at home mom and have been for almost 11 years (with about 3 years of part-time work mixed in there). Having a 13 month old can be even harder than a newborn. Really listen to your wife's reasons for not being ready to reenter the workforce. She probably has just as many valid reasons for her side as you do. It's a hard decision to make and it can take time for both of you to settle on the "right" decision for your family. And the "right" decision for your family can change many times before your kids are grown. We are getting ready for me to go back to work part-time. The timing is right and we are all happier that we haven't forced things. Sure we could have made a bit more money over the past several years but there is a lot more to life than money.
-
It is a proven fact that marriage is the leading cause of divorce.
Those going through a divorce may find this site very helpful. I know I did.
Good luck.
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/Divorce-Support-Forums-3029.html
-
I am happily married with two kids, and my wife has been a SAHM for about 4 out of 7 years of our marriage. Our youngest child is about 13 months now, and she's been at home with him. Lately- i've been asking her about getting back into the workforce. She is actually in early childhood education and any job she gets is very likely to come with either free or reduced childcare- which would be big for us.
Anyway- she's been pushing back on me pretty hard, not wanting to go back to work. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of my job, so i'd love to accelerate our path to FIRE by adding in some more income into the household. But, she insists that she wouldn't be happy at work right now. I'll admit it is tough. At no point when we got married did we say that one of us would be a stay at home parent indefinitely. She wanted to stay at home for the first year for both of our kids, and I totally supported that. And i'd agree with folks that I was only able to reach my full earning potential with her at home taking primary care of the kids.
But now, with the kids getting older, and her being out of work for awhile, I see that it might start getting harder and harder for her to go back. To be honest, it does worry me a bit, and to be frank, I feel like it puts me in the awkward position of being the "bad guy" by trying to encourage her to work.
Hey pokercab,
I just wanted to share my perspective on your situation. I am a stay at home mom and have been for almost 11 years (with about 3 years of part-time work mixed in there). Having a 13 month old can be even harder than a newborn. Really listen to your wife's reasons for not being ready to reenter the workforce. She probably has just as many valid reasons for her side as you do. It's a hard decision to make and it can take time for both of you to settle on the "right" decision for your family. And the "right" decision for your family can change many times before your kids are grown. We are getting ready for me to go back to work part-time. The timing is right and we are all happier that we haven't forced things. Sure we could have made a bit more money over the past several years but there is a lot more to life than money.
Thanks sweetbetsy for that perspective, and I've found other folks' perspective interesting as well. My wife and I talked and her apprehension is about half feeling like she is too busy at home to go back to work full time and half that she simply doesn't really want to work in child care anymore. I understand on both counts. We're going to explore some alternative part time options, and see what might make sense. But ultimately, i told her that she should do whatever she feels is right.
I think you're definitely right about things being more important than money. Since I found MMM and the frugal path i've definitely made great strides in saving money, and being more cognizant about finances in general and how to optimize. But I think I have a tendency to become a bit obsessive about the numbers. When I thought about my wife getting back to work, all i was really thinking about was the added income and how much faster we could get to FIRE- but there really is a host of other considerations. Also, I think I tend to project my own frustration with my job situation on to my wife staying home. As opposed to re-examining my choices, and thinking about how I can make my situation better, its really just easier to think "well, if she could get a job I could quit sooner."
-
We have a post-nuptial agreement stating that I get 50% his gross salary until retirement. I also would get child support. This is to guarantee I will be provided for if he flakes on the marriage. Because of this I am comfortable with my decision to be a permanent stay at home mom/homeschool mom.
I guess I'm curious about this agreement and the fine print. Is there a stipulation that you only get those things if he initiates the divorce?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that you are the kind of person who would think this way, but without stipulations, this agreement seems like a pretty nice golden parachute to me. If you decided, "you know what, this whole marriage thing isn't really doing it for me anymore" or "that pool boy looks awful cute, my husband wouldn't want to get a divorce so I can sleep around without consequences." You get everything you want and 50% of his salary, he watches you sleep around or loses 50% of his salary.
Again I'm not saying that you would do these things, just that the agreement seems awfully unfair to your husband (to the point that if I were his divorce attorney I'd argue that it shouldn't be allowed because he didn't know his rights when he signed it).
-
We are in this situation except no kids, yet. My girlfriend works but she is in a toxic environment working as a international tax accountant. The thing is she badly needs to pass her CPA exams (yesteryear) to apply elsewhere and she has been unmotivated and lazy for two years! In those two years she took one month unpaid time off to just study and only passed one section! Two more remain and frankly she refuses to dedicate herself to helping her own situation by studying. As they say you cannot force anyone to anything to help themselves and such is our situation. I am changing jobs and looking to relocate as my four hour daily train/walking trip is killing me heart and soul.
erhm. Dare I say this might be one of those warning signs you'll look back on later?
Indeed. I am doing what I can to improve things within my control like changing my job to reduce the commute. However, I am exasperated when I hear stories about how one partner refuses to go back to work or basically take some personal accountability (like my gf refusal to study for her CPA exams) to improve their own reality. As for warning signs, yes, I concur and that is why I do not want to have kids and why we are not engaged. I love her dearly but frankly her actions currently do not match the words she says, namely her desire to change jobs, settle down and relocate. Only time will tell....
It sounds like your girlfriend is depressed, so I hope she is doing something to address that. Having an awful job can suck the life and will out of a person. Some outside help might enable her to turn those words into actions.
On the other hand, your comment about not wanting kids jumped out at me. I never wanted kids, for a whole host of reasons, and I think that lead to me devaluing reliability and maturity as important qualities in my first husband. I knew that he wasn't mature enough to take care of a child, but I thought I didn't need him to be. I could take care of myself, surely he could at least take care of himself, so we would take care of ourselves together, right? Wrong. Laughably wrong. It is shocking to what extent another person can wreck your life despite all of your best efforts. Picture one of those skiers in ski cross who gets clipped by someone else and wipes out in spectacular fashion. That was me. If you think that someone is too unreliable and immature to be a parent, they might also be too unreliable and immature to be a serious partner.</doomandgloom>
@ CHOPAG: She actually is depressed and taking one prescription, but she refuses to attend counseling. She has a very hard time expressing herself honestly. Also you raise a good point about children and if she might be unreliable/immature as a parent. I am still struggling with this and I appreciate your thoughtful candor.
@ flostache, those are great ideas that both genders should apply prior to committing to anyone. Would also add a few other observations, if one partner lacks the ability to empathize and express compassion towards others. Run. Also, if one partner treats the other as their verbal and emotional punching bag, run. Our good buddy recently experienced this.
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
-
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
We have a pre-nup and keep separate finances. Basically if we decide to own things jointly like our car and our house, they are 50/50. Otherwise we just leave them in our own accounts that we had prior to marriage. It works well for us because we both prefer it that way, are both good with saving money, and have full disclosure with each other. It's just about day to day management, not about hiding anything. If either of us died, the other gets all the money.
How was the topic raised? - Before we got married he had about twice the net worth that I did, but I was more financially savvy. I asked him if he wanted a pre-nup as I wanted to be very clear that I wasn't with him for his money. I would never stay with someone just to avoid financial difficulties and would always be able to pay my own way. (No kids for us.) After that we discussed how we would manage money, especially in situations such as one of us intentionally working less, going back to school, etc. Initially it was me who wanted to go back to school and he felt that was too risky. He is very risk adverse. It ended up him going back to school and losing more income than I.
We just both preferred to continue managing our own money. We can work as little as we want as long as we can still pay our share of the bills; we can buy whatever we want without asking the other person (but we never actually do this except with small amounts.) We also have very different ideas about investing and would drive each other crazy if our money was together in that way. Retirement accounts have to be separate anyhow. We chose to each do our own thing with our investments and spending. We are both happy that way. If our money was combined and we had to agree on every decision we'd both be unhappy all the time. That's certainly not what I want for my life/marriage.
-
No matter what, divorce sucks. In retrospect, there are usually signs of trouble in the future... But, even with potential signs, there is no really no way to see it coming sometimes since you can't tally it all up until you see what actually causes the end.. I am 3 years out now, after a 7 year marriage (dated for 3 years before we even got married). Still going through the fight... I wish it would just end already so I could move on with my life. Hardest part is trying to make sure the kids are as unaffected as possible. I am happy that the relationship is over and I can direct my own life now. I know in the end it will all be fine. I know that my kids are seeing/learning a lot of things that I had hoped they would never have to learn... It is really really hard to have to see them through the tough spots without getting really angry. But, outside of the affect on the kids, the worst part for me is the lack of desire for any new relationship. It is a double edged sword of sorts... I get sad thinking of growing old alone and I worry about when times come that a partner would really help (illness/old age) and I am terrified of being in a relationship, knowing that its possible to wake up with a whole new life in one day because of your partners choices...bummer.
I had to buy him out of the house when we divorced. As far as money goes, we were "poor" then, and I have become substantially richer since my divorce.. mostly because there isn't any more bleeding :) I remember just after my separation, I was terrified by the idea of paying the bills and would I have enough for everything. Then, my savings account kept growing and growing, and I realized my kids and I are actually not very spendy :) Saving money is fun for us, and the kids each have their own portion of the budget to handle (my teen handles her own needs, my 8 year old son is in charge of the household entertainment budget, and the 4 year old collects the change in the money jar). It is amazing how bad a spendy person can be for a household budget. All fixed now :)
-
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
Before engagement, we first discussed getting a prenup. I told him I was willing to sign one if it was fair. (In that he had a condo which was partially an early inheritance, and if he wanted to protect that, I wanted to protect any inheritance I might receive, which would likely be larger. I also wanted it to protect a spouse that stayed home - which given this conversation, is apparently far, far more critical than I would have even thought, because I am flat out astonished at how many here disagree with basic rehabilitative alimony.) We opted not to have one in the end. We've actually both earned more (substantially) than the other at times over the past 5.5 years, and depending on choices we make, could reverse again, so we don't have a "you're the breadwinner" perspective.
We were open about finances while dating. We discussed how we'd keep finances while engaged. Essentially, we got married old enough (30s) that we already had ways of doing things. Neither one of us wanted to get rid of "their" bank because we liked them for various reasons. More specifically, I like USAA and think they are a great bank in terms of customer service and ease of things like free atm withdrawals anywhere. He likes his bank for having a physical presence in this state (helpful with check depositing) and thinks they've done ok by him.
So officially, we've put our names on each other's accounts. If something happens (death to divorce) they are mingled. But practically, our finances are separate though linked (can push/pull money through them). Generally we'll talk about expenses of things we're buying (usually shop together for the most part, so it's often only things online like presents for family that are bought separate), particularly anything large, but we're not obligated to do so. For the most part we're on the same wave length of spending, but we do have our own foibles. We just bought a house about 2 months ago, and we have yet to actually figure out how we're paying the bills for it. We're in the process of selling the condo right now and once that's done I think we'll figure out more concretely.
For now, we'll just ask the other if they need money and tell them to take it from the accounts if so. It's completely hodge podge right now because of buying the house and things for the house (e.g. floors sanded, buying appliances, plans to buy certain decorative/practical items). Prior to the house, he's tended to pay more bills because he earns a bit more and because he was already paying them when I first moved in (so I took over things like cable, which we had switched because I negotiated better, groceries, etc). If we have kids we would need to rework it.
Not sure if that fully answers your question, but if not, feel free to ask more questions.
-
@ Kestra and CommonCents, thank you both for sharing why you agreed on pre-nups and kept your finances separate. Thank you!
@ ALL: Would really like to hear from others on this topic. Are there other readers who considered separating your finances and implementing a pre-nup? How did you raise the delicate topic? Was your partner offended? If so how did the conversations/topics progress? Thank you all in advance!!
Conversely, if you decided against pre-nups and keeping your finances separate, do you mind sharing why? We're trying to gain better understanding on a often unspoken topic. Thank you.
-
'If' I am ever in a position where I am thinking about marriage I will be exploring the concept of a prenup and separate finances with perhaps some combined pools of money. I have seen instances where you ask someone their stance on an issue or how they react under certain circumstances, and they give you an answer, then the circumstance happens and they are 180 opposite of what they said!
It can really shake your core beliefs when this happens, in a bad way.
-
Removed previous link to questionable content. Thanks to Elaine for pointing it out.
-
We don't want to hijack this thread but our friends shared this link with us http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,335815,page=1 has anyone read it before? Curious on thoughts since it is somewhat related to the OT. Thank you.
Wow, just a heads up to anyone going over there: it's suuuuuuuper sexist. Refers to SAHM's as typically "nasty monsters" and "teenage princesses", c-word is everywhere, women referred to mostly as "females", and multiple references to "c*** work".
-
Ugh, misogyny :-(
-
@ Kestra and CommonCents, thank you both for sharing why you agreed on pre-nups and kept your finances separate. Thank you!
@ ALL: Would really like to hear from others on this topic. Are there other readers who considered separating your finances and implementing a pre-nup? How did you raise the delicate topic? Was your partner offended? If so how did the conversations/topics progress? Thank you all in advance!!
Conversely, if you decided against pre-nups and keeping your finances separate, do you mind sharing why? We're trying to gain better understanding on a often unspoken topic. Thank you.
We have a prenup (which I am now very grateful for, as we are going through separation right now and are most likely headed for divorce down the road)
My parents got divorced when I was little, but I remember my Mum stressing over things and getting a postnup, as my biological dad had a lot of debt and she had assets (albeit not huge) that she wanted to protect.
I have also seen a bunch of messy divorces over the years.
When we got married (after many years of living together), I owned a partially paid off apartment and had some saving while he owned a business with a family member of his and had practically no savings. There were also inheritance considerations on my side
So I brought up the subject, that this was important for both of us and would protect both sides.
The business never took off, but it could have and he may have been forced to sell in order to pay me out, had I insisted, the same was true for my apartment/savings.
From a very early stage I sensed we had different ways to handle finances and I would have not been comfortable having shared accounts
But even had we been on the same page spending wise and asset wise, I am not sure if I'd want joint finances. I have always valued my independence.
I know a lot of people think that's odd, but I have seen some really crazy things over the years.
That said, with very few exceptions, I was the one who earned more, the one who usually took care of living quarters, furniture, larger purchases etc.
I have no problem with sharing on a voluntary basis, but in hindsight, I should have probably asked for a fair share of contribution based on relative salaries
-
@ Kestra and CommonCents, thank you both for sharing why you agreed on pre-nups and kept your finances separate. Thank you!
@ ALL: Would really like to hear from others on this topic. Are there other readers who considered separating your finances and implementing a pre-nup? How did you raise the delicate topic? Was your partner offended? If so how did the conversations/topics progress? Thank you all in advance!!
Conversely, if you decided against pre-nups and keeping your finances separate, do you mind sharing why? We're trying to gain better understanding on a often unspoken topic. Thank you.
I never thought of a pre-nup before my wife and I got married, and I really don't regret it with the way our marriage currently is - no matter what the fall out. We tried doing separate accounts to start (when we first moved in together we were engaged) and it just became a pain in the ass to manage and do budgeting. I also hated the concept of separating who had to pay what bills. I found it easier to pool our money. This isn't to say it is not possible or that it can't be done easily - but my fear was if she decided to stop paying some bills or did pay them all, how would I know? Or how would I handle it if she stopped contributing to our joint account for bills?
As far as the assets going into the marriage, well, I didn't have a whole lot. Yes, inheritance money will be a factor -- but she'll have that on her side, too. Money was never an object with either of us. For me, it is all about the kids. I can always make more money doing what I enjoy. Would I like being taken advantage of? Of course, not. But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in. If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection). But then again, I also waited until I was 21 to drink, never did drugs, and my wife is the only women I've been with.
-
But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in. If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection).
I think that's a fair question, and even though it was posed rhetorically, I'll venture an answer from my perspective: I see it much as the same thing as preparing a will or proper estate planning. You could die without one, and leave it to the courts to decide where your assets and benefits go. But that's really giving up all control with the misguided hope that the laws or judge in your locality will agree with or even know what your intentions were. Similarly in a divorce, the likelihood that the laws in your area will align with what a couple would have chosen are slim and none, and certainly divorcing couples often have differing views on what should happen. Putting it all in writing when the parties can have a less emotionally charged and non-confrontational discussion helps prevent disagreements down the road, and takes the guesswork out of how things should be split if the marriage doesn't work out for whatever reason (just like an estate plan takes the guesswork out after a death).
I think you're right, it's less than an "all in" mentality, but in the cold statistics of reality, nearly half of all marriages will end in divorce. Those are really high odds, I think it reasonable to realize any of us could be the one out of two who finds themselves on the wrong side of the odds and therefore have a plan rather than leaving it to the whims of local laws or court, which are decidedly imperfect and often even unfair, as pointed out by some of the stories here.
Ha, at the time of my divorce I had $6500/month in take home pay, and according to the state formulas and with no prenup, was ordered to send my ex-wife $6400/month in alimony and child support and maintaining the marital residence for three years. For those challenged with math, that left me exactly $100/month to live on in my own apartment and for my two kids with me half-time for three years, in expensive Wash. DC. That is no exaggeration. And that was all on top of splitting the assets and my future pension and social security 50-50. This despite the strong evidence that my wife was cheating on me, and it was her who drove the divorce, but none of that matters as far as the law is concerned. Of course I howled that it was unfair and impossible to sustain, and the lawyers and judge all told me what a "good" deal I was getting according to the law and had better settle. So, I lived off credit cards for three years, and thanked God when it was finally over.
-
You know, if you want the SAHP to return to work, may I make a suggestion? Sit down and write out everything the SAHP is responsible for...and don't forget to include things that don't have visible deliverables like staying on top of whether there is milk in the fridge/shoes that fit for the kids/etc. Before asking the SAHP to find a job, start doing at LEAST half of those chores. In fact, do more than half because having two working parents in the home means that there will be MORE, not the same, amount of things to track in the household. Also, you be the one to research and secure alternative childcare options when kids are sick/out of school/etc. Otherwise, asking a SAHP parent to find and start a job means you've just doubled their workload.
-
Ahhh Franklin, we could talk about this for years...or not...depends on how may drinks I have I guess. I married my first DH poor and divorced him and we SHOCK AND AWEE managed to divorce and separate our assets fairly with no court fight. He didn't owe me anything and I was raised by a man, who let me know that I owed no one anything and they owed me nothing in return. I took a chance, and lost. Its life, not free paycheck time. Anywhooo. Second dh and I married and he got his ass handed to him in court and we now pay 950/mo in child support. As a woman and I'm generally in the minority but I'll put it out there anyways, I hate alimony and child support and have no time for people that feel ENTITLED to either. Life is like Vegas...you make a bad gamble, you lose, you aren't owed anything. Nobody forced you to marry the turd that you divorced or that divorced you. I have a low tolerance for folks that can't take a measure of accountability and find a solution rather than becoming bitter and always finding excuses....but I again digress. We pay $950/mo in child support. Every year, mommy pulls up in a new vehicle, this year it was a Hummer. And step daughter who is now 13 is always talking about how POOR they are. POOR. But in the next sentence will discuss how mom is going to buy a new camper/trailer/boat. In the last two years we have been asked to cover braces fully, and pitching coaching for DSD. We never give two thoughts to that kind of stuff, we just cover it and move on...kind of like the child support. I don't even think about anymore to be honest. If I did I would get bitter. Instead I just chose to ignore it and in a way feel bad for them. Mom depends on child support for income to pay mortgage and car payments, snow mobile payments, etc., which will evaporate when daughter turns 18 and then she will be in a world of hurt with no options. I should add in before anyone blasts me on here, I am in no way against supporting your child, I am just fully against the design of our system as it is now. One sized fits all solutions imposed by a court which magically seem to always screw the guys and favor women is a step back for everyone involved. Don't tell me you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps while receiving cash payments from someone you are no longer seeing. Dh and I have discussed expectations of divorce if the worst were to happen. And there will be no court ordered anything. Frankly I'd be embarrassed as a man or woman to know someone else was supporting me after our legal connection/emotional connection was severed...as for your ex and her now dh apparently they like having a sugar daddy? But you needn't dwell on that, you're just smart enough now to be so secure that you support 3 adults. That's big time...so virtual high five :D I would say though, marriage is risky and you go into it knowing the risks. For those of you that are scarred from prior divorces and not wanting to mingle finances this baffles me. Why ever even get into a relationship again then? What's the point? Marriage is about commitment and taking a chance? Not judging though, if you guys can make it work then more power to you. If I was ever dating again and someone said that to me, I'd be out...I like a man who can go all in. Life is a crazy ride and I need a co pilot who isn't jumpy ya know :D
-
But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in. If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection).
I think that's a fair question, and even though it was posed rhetorically, I'll venture an answer from my perspective: I see it much as the same thing as preparing a will or proper estate planning. You could die without one, and leave it to the courts to decide where your assets and benefits go. But that's really giving up all control with the misguided hope that the laws or judge in your locality will agree with or even know what your intentions were. Similarly in a divorce, the likelihood that the laws in your area will align with what a couple would have chosen are slim and none, and certainly divorcing couples often have differing views on what should happen. Putting it all in writing when the parties can have a less emotionally charged and non-confrontational discussion helps prevent disagreements down the road, and takes the guesswork out of how things should be split if the marriage doesn't work out for whatever reason (just like an estate plan takes the guesswork out after a death).
I think you're right, it's less than an "all in" mentality, but in the cold statistics of reality, nearly half of all marriages will end in divorce. Those are really high odds, I think it reasonable to realize any of us could be the one out of two who finds themselves on the wrong side of the odds and therefore have a plan rather than leaving it to the whims of local laws or court, which are decidedly imperfect and often even unfair, as pointed out by some of the stories here.
Ha, at the time of my divorce I had $6500/month in take home pay, and according to the state formulas and with no prenup, was ordered to send my ex-wife $6400/month in alimony and child support and maintaining the marital residence for three years. For those challenged with math, that left me exactly $100/month to live on in my own apartment and for my two kids with me half-time for three years, in expensive Wash. DC. That is no exaggeration. And that was all on top of splitting the assets and my future pension and social security 50-50. This despite the strong evidence that my wife was cheating on me, and it was her who drove the divorce, but none of that matters as far as the law is concerned. Of course I howled that it was unfair and impossible to sustain, and the lawyers and judge all told me what a "good" deal I was getting according to the law and had better settle. So, I lived off credit cards for three years, and thanked God when it was finally over.
That was truly brutal. Glad you made it though!
-
But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in. If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection).
I think that's a fair question, and even though it was posed rhetorically, I'll venture an answer from my perspective: I see it much as the same thing as preparing a will or proper estate planning. You could die without one, and leave it to the courts to decide where your assets and benefits go. But that's really giving up all control with the misguided hope that the laws or judge in your locality will agree with or even know what your intentions were. Similarly in a divorce, the likelihood that the laws in your area will align with what a couple would have chosen are slim and none, and certainly divorcing couples often have differing views on what should happen. Putting it all in writing when the parties can have a less emotionally charged and non-confrontational discussion helps prevent disagreements down the road, and takes the guesswork out of how things should be split if the marriage doesn't work out for whatever reason (just like an estate plan takes the guesswork out after a death).
I think you're right, it's less than an "all in" mentality, but in the cold statistics of reality, nearly half of all marriages will end in divorce. Those are really high odds, I think it reasonable to realize any of us could be the one out of two who finds themselves on the wrong side of the odds and therefore have a plan rather than leaving it to the whims of local laws or court, which are decidedly imperfect and often even unfair, as pointed out by some of the stories here.
Ha, at the time of my divorce I had $6500/month in take home pay, and according to the state formulas and with no prenup, was ordered to send my ex-wife $6400/month in alimony and child support and maintaining the marital residence for three years. For those challenged with math, that left me exactly $100/month to live on in my own apartment and for my two kids with me half-time for three years, in expensive Wash. DC. That is no exaggeration. And that was all on top of splitting the assets and my future pension and social security 50-50. This despite the strong evidence that my wife was cheating on me, and it was her who drove the divorce, but none of that matters as far as the law is concerned. Of course I howled that it was unfair and impossible to sustain, and the lawyers and judge all told me what a "good" deal I was getting according to the law and had better settle. So, I lived off credit cards for three years, and thanked God when it was finally over.
That is just all kinds of wrong.
I guess the only thing I disagree with is that while the end result of not having a pre-nup versus not having a will might be the same (the law dictates payouts), the difference is I don't have a choice about death. I do have a choice to get married and maybe the reason that 50% of the marriages end in divorce is because of pre-nups. I know it is hard to show, but I'd be curious to see how many marriages with vs without end in divorce. The best I could find is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/21/the-power-of-the-prenup/if-you-want-a-prenup-you-dont-want-marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/21/the-power-of-the-prenup/if-you-want-a-prenup-you-dont-want-marriage)
Who knows. Maybe the lack of commitment in financial means is one of the reasons for the increased rate. I don't really know.
-
If people worked as hard at maintaining a marriage worth having as they do at building their net worth, maybe there wouldn't be so many divorces.
By marriage worth having, I don't mean some idealist fairy tale, although if you can pull that off, great. I mean a marriage where a person concludes, "if we get divorced, we'll just be trading one set of problems for another set of problems."
-
If people worked as hard at maintaining a marriage worth having as they do at building their net worth, maybe there wouldn't be so many divorces.
By marriage worth having, I don't mean some idealist fairy tale, although if you can pull that off, great. I mean a marriage where a person concludes, "if we get divorced, we'll just be trading one set of problems for another set of problems."
Isn't that true by definition? life is about a trade off of pros and cons.
-
This has been a very interesting read and thank you everyone for sharing!
It is amazing to me what some of you have gone through and you still have practical/positive attitudes. I'm encouraged. Single, but encouraged. :)
-
This has been a very interesting read and thank you everyone for sharing!
It is amazing to me what some of you have gone through and you still have practical/positive attitudes. I'm encouraged. Single, but encouraged. :)
Sometimes what you'll find is the marriage ending is cause enough to have a positive attitude.
-
This thread both scares me and gives me hope. I wil be starting divorce this coming spring/summer. Keeping my fingers crossed that I will come out of it in one piece (mentaly, emotionally, and financially).
-
...and it just became a pain in the ass to manage and do budgeting. I also hated the concept of separating who had to pay what bills. I found it easier to pool our money...
I know, I can't imagine keeping that kind of accounting. I turned over all household bill paying, accounting, financial paperwork to DH. He is very good at it, he is precise and timely.
But it could be said that for me, keeping a stronger hand in daily bill paying would be a good thing. I don't know what our gas bill is for these past few cold months, for instance. Still, I can grab the checkbook any time and see how much we pay for what.
-
This is one of the main reason why some of you have been screwed by the court system.
Title IV_D funding has caused great grief to those families trying to get a "fair hearing" in family court. The Family Court Judges, attorney ad litems, psychologist benefit from Title IV-D funding. The funds are given to the states on collection of child support. There is no incentive to grant the "best parent" custody - but to examine which parent can pay child support. This is important as every dollar of child support collected is matched by Title IV-D funding. The funding going to the States are not used to enforce visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, but going into areas of the State that are not accounted for.
Here is a website to petition Title IV-D funding.
http://www.petition2congress.com/10413/family-court-corruption-to-abolish-title-iv-d-funding-from-states/ (http://www.petition2congress.com/10413/family-court-corruption-to-abolish-title-iv-d-funding-from-states/)
I've also heard that some States are moving away from "No Fault Divorces" and going back to hearing cases where you can prove fault...but I'm sure that could get even uglier.
-
This thread both scares me and gives me hope. I wil be starting divorce this coming spring/summer. Keeping my fingers crossed that I will come out of it in one piece (mentaly, emotionally, and financially).
If I can give you any advice, it's just keep a level head, which is really hard during something that can get emotional. But don't get drug into the pettiness that so many people do, keep your sights set on the long term and just stay level headed. It is possible to come out both emotionally and financially intact as long as you both can just keep emotions at bay as much as possible! There is life after divorce, sometimes a better and wiser life!
-
This thread both scares me and gives me hope. I wil be starting divorce this coming spring/summer. Keeping my fingers crossed that I will come out of it in one piece (mentaly, emotionally, and financially).
If I can give you any advice, it's just keep a level head, which is really hard during something that can get emotional. But don't get drug into the pettiness that so many people do, keep your sights set on the long term and just stay level headed. It is possible to come out both emotionally and financially intact as long as you both can just keep emotions at bay as much as possible! There is life after divorce, sometimes a better and wiser life!
Tank you JScott2135
I definitely hope to do just that. How the things will turn out in reality only time will tell.
-
This thread both scares me and gives me hope. I wil be starting divorce this coming spring/summer. Keeping my fingers crossed that I will come out of it in one piece (mentaly, emotionally, and financially).
If I can give you any advice, it's just keep a level head, which is really hard during something that can get emotional. But don't get drug into the pettiness that so many people do, keep your sights set on the long term and just stay level headed. It is possible to come out both emotionally and financially intact as long as you both can just keep emotions at bay as much as possible! There is life after divorce, sometimes a better and wiser life!
Tank you JScott2135
I definitely hope to do just that. How the things will turn out in reality only time will tell.
Divorce really doesn't have to be devastating. Mine was just rather sad: we had no kids and were literally going in different directions (different continents, in fact) and we both just decided it was over. If you can keep things amicable and avoid blame, it can be a quick, relatively easy process.
Weirdly enough, my ex actually left rather happy. This was pre-mustachian times for me, but I had done a reasonable job of managing the finances and he had never bothered to check himself. As it was, he left with a funded IRA and some investments: he remarked that it was much more than he thought he had and looked rather pleased. ;)
-
We were totally broke, and I couldn't figure out why. In the first few months apart, I had my paycheck deposited in our joint account, while he would have his put into his own account. He would take money from the joint account whenever he wanted, even though I had full custody of the kids and paid 100% of their support. I just didn't understand the way things were supposed to work. I had such guilt over leaving.
In the year after we split, I lived in the house for the first six months and paid the mortgage on my own. He lived in the house the second six months, and did NOT pay the mortgage, and let it go to a short sale. He then claimed the mortgage deduction on his taxes.
There was a lot more, but it's all good. It took me two years to pay off the $10,000 lawyer fee, but I got out of the marriage. Once I woke up and opened my own bank account, all of a sudden, I had money in the bank at the end of the month, even though my take-home was exactly the same as it had been when I lived with x, and even though x's paycheck was originally going into the joint account. I still sometimes wonder where the money actually went. He accused me of siphoning money off into a secret account, which make me wonder if that's what he was doing. But he just cashed in the last $20K from his retirement account. So I doubt it. My income has something like tripled since leaving him; his has decreased slightly.
-
I was talking to a buddy of mine last night who is about to go through a divorce and we were talking about the financial impact, as he is facing both alimony and child support, both of which I feel his wife and daughter are entitled to (the only question is how much alimony and for how long).
For a guy who is always living paycheck to paycheck, this is going to be quite a setback. I really feel for him even though he dug his own hole.
-
@FrugalZony and FiguringItOut: Sorry to hear you're both facing separation/divorce. It sucks, but hang in there and I promise you'll get through it!
-
Thank you DoubleDown.
-
I for one will be taking the path to MGTOW. It just doesn't make much sense any more to get married.
-
As someone who is about to get married in a month, this is a depressing thread.
-
As someone who is about to get married in a month, this is a depressing thread.
I've been married over 10 years, we dated for about 7 years before we got married, and I still love her like I did when we first met. Not all stories end this way, and yours doesn't have to. It's good to be prepared for divorce and take some financial precautions (I'm more in the savings and job qualifications camp, less concerned about a prenup), but don't dwell on it and certainly don't let these stories depress you.
Congrats on the upcoming vows, and good luck with your life together.
-
Do people not discuss things like "will both parents work?" or "will we homeschool?" or "how many kids do we want?" decently early in serious relationships?
Perhaps this should be its own thread but it seems like a lot of these issues could be somewhat mitigated simply by being on the same page about what family life looks like before it's "too late." Or maybe I'm naive and young :)
-
As someone who is about to get married in a month, this is a depressing thread.
It doesn't have to be at all. My marriage is in its 12th year and showing no signs of going bad, mostly because we talked everything out before we married, and made sure we were compatible.
If you have not worked out yet how you're going to "do" finances, whether/when to have kids, etc., then you have something to worry about. Have those conversations now....you won't regret it.
-
Yeah, I'm not worried about it at all. I just find the subject very depressing.
-
I agree that discussing the big things like, kids, finances, ect is a must before marriage. But at the same time people do change and who knows what the future holds. I have known my wife for almost 17 years, been married for almost 5, and we have changed so much since we meet that it's impossible to have know the troubles we have/will encountered. What we try to do is communicate with each other. We are still learning how to talk to each other, things change when kids, finances, and family issues all come at once, the stress it puts on a relationship is crazy. But we have been together this long and there is a reason why we are still together, even though we sometimes loose sight of that during a heated debate.
-
It doesn't have to be at all. My marriage is in its 12th year and showing no signs of going bad, mostly because we talked everything out before we married, and made sure we were compatible.
If you have not worked out yet how you're going to "do" finances, whether/when to have kids, etc., then you have something to worry about. Have those conversations now....you won't regret it.
Definitely have those conversations, but there are other "cross checks" you could/should do, e.g. is there any difference in what the partner says they think/are/do and how they actually behave? Do they treat others differently to you i.e. everyone thinks they are wonderful but this is not borne out in their partnered relationship? Check out how their parents/family relationships work and what are the blackspots and hidden expectations in these? Some folks truly are transition people and can leave behind dysfunctional families, but often there is regression/stuff comes out under stress. If they come from an American apple pie family, still look at the dynamics and values and make sure you can live with them. Ask your family and good friends honestly what they think about the match.
Personally I don't think you can ever know someone perfectly in advance and there is some element of luck involved. (sorry if thats scary).
-
It doesn't have to be at all. My marriage is in its 12th year and showing no signs of going bad, mostly because we talked everything out before we married, and made sure we were compatible.
If you have not worked out yet how you're going to "do" finances, whether/when to have kids, etc., then you have something to worry about. Have those conversations now....you won't regret it.
Definitely have those conversations, but there are other "cross checks" you could/should do, e.g. is there any difference in what the partner says they think/are/do and how they actually behave? Do they treat others differently to you i.e. everyone thinks they are wonderful but this is not borne out in their partnered relationship? Check out how their parents/family relationships work and what are the blackspots and hidden expectations in these? Some folks truly are transition people and can leave behind dysfunctional families, but often there is regression/stuff comes out under stress. If they come from an American apple pie family, still look at the dynamics and values and make sure you can live with them. Ask your family and good friends honestly what they think about the match.
Personally I don't think you can ever know someone perfectly in advance and there is some element of luck involved. (sorry if thats scary).
This is very true. I lived with an ex for over three years, and in retrospect should have been more concerned earlier about the:
- Lack of friends
- Way he treated his mom (swearing and hanging up on her = not cool)
- Discrepancies in stories
- Belief that everyone else was subpar to him
- Temper
It's like the pot that slowly boils and kills the frog, crabs, or lobsters. Don't move forward so rapidly that you ignore signs or feel like you are stuck and can't leave easily. Luckily, I walked away after he cheated on me on an business trip and he moved overseas to be with that girl. Turned out later he cheated on his college gf to start dating me. And that he lied about his entire history (including how his dad died, and house he showed me he lived in). He got married (to someone else) 2.5 years later, and is now, less than 5 years later, in the process of getting divorced as his wife didn't think it cool that he sleep around with his best friend's wife. Oh and the classic narcissistic personality got to her.
Ask your friends for their honest opinions. Be willing to listen to the negatives, and don't hold it against them later, even if you stay with the person. If either of us had done this early on, it might have saved us a lot of grief.
-
Do people not discuss things like "will both parents work?" or "will we homeschool?" or "how many kids do we want?" decently early in serious relationships?
Perhaps this should be its own thread but it seems like a lot of these issues could be somewhat mitigated simply by being on the same page about what family life looks like before it's "too late." Or maybe I'm naive and young :)
I have been wondering this a lot lately. I would love to know what the average couple has and hasn't discussed prior to getting married. I feel like my SO (of 5+ years) and I really talk through everything, and continue to revisit various topics from time to time (from kids, to housework, to finance, lifestyle, goals, belief systems, what happens if one of us is hospitalized long term, who might stay at home in the future, where we want to live, elder care for our parents, etc.). I do realize that this isn't some iron clad divorce armor, but it seems like a lot of people I know don't really talk about the serious/unpleasant things with their partners. One friend of mine mentioned that she didn't know how her HUSBAND felt about abortion. One guy I know said he didn't know his wife was 20k in debt when he married her. I know another woman who married a guy before he finished his PhD. They never discussed timelines for anything, or who would do what work at home- so now she financially supports the entire family, does all the housework, and he's on year 3 of writing his dissertation and not working. I can't help but think: didn't you talk about this stuff? How did this not come up? It boggles my mind, maybe we should start a thread but I can't think of how to phrase the topic.
-
One friend of mine mentioned that she didn't know how her HUSBAND felt about abortion.
Wow, I know how some coworkers feel about abortion.
-
That is just all kinds of wrong.
I guess the only thing I disagree with is that while the end result of not having a pre-nup versus not having a will might be the same (the law dictates payouts), the difference is I don't have a choice about death. I do have a choice to get married and maybe the reason that 50% of the marriages end in divorce is because of pre-nups. I know it is hard to show, but I'd be curious to see how many marriages with vs without end in divorce. The best I could find is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/21/the-power-of-the-prenup/if-you-want-a-prenup-you-dont-want-marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/21/the-power-of-the-prenup/if-you-want-a-prenup-you-dont-want-marriage)
Who knows. Maybe the lack of commitment in financial means is one of the reasons for the increased rate. I don't really know.
How many people do you think get pre-nups? I'd be willing to bet that it's a minority (5-10 percent). I think you are mixing up the causation. I would say that a high divorce rate, along with the breadwinner getting his/her clock cleaned, causes the popularity of pre-nups. The stories I've heard about divorce from my coworkers (mind you that 100% of them thought they wouldn't get divorced) make many of these stories seem easy in comparison, and hearing these stories would half-convince almost anyone to get a pre-nup.
Also, if pre-nups caused divorce, wouldn't the higher earner usually be more likely to file? Men still average more money than women in aggregate, yet women still file for divorce more often.
I would say a higher divorce rate has to do with society not holding marriage as sacred and divorce as taboo as it used to. No-fault marriages became more common too. Women also are more independent and can get out of a marriage rather than staying with the guy because he's a "good provider". Maybe people just aren't as easy to please as they used to be and hold more lofty expectations of marriage and life in general. So I would say that a higher divorce rate isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing.
-
Do people not discuss things like "will both parents work?" or "will we homeschool?" or "how many kids do we want?" decently early in serious relationships?
Perhaps this should be its own thread but it seems like a lot of these issues could be somewhat mitigated simply by being on the same page about what family life looks like before it's "too late." Or maybe I'm naive and young :)
I have been wondering this a lot lately. I would love to know what the average couple has and hasn't discussed prior to getting married. I feel like my SO (of 5+ years) and I really talk through everything, and continue to revisit various topics from time to time (from kids, to housework, to finance, lifestyle, goals, belief systems, what happens if one of us is hospitalized long term, who might stay at home in the future, where we want to live, elder care for our parents, etc.). I do realize that this isn't some iron clad divorce armor, but it seems like a lot of people I know don't really talk about the serious/unpleasant things with their partners. One friend of mine mentioned that she didn't know how her HUSBAND felt about abortion. One guy I know said he didn't know his wife was 20k in debt when he married her. I know another woman who married a guy before he finished his PhD. They never discussed timelines for anything, or who would do what work at home- so now she financially supports the entire family, does all the housework, and he's on year 3 of writing his dissertation and not working. I can't help but think: didn't you talk about this stuff? How did this not come up? It boggles my mind, maybe we should start a thread but I can't think of how to phrase the topic.
Maybe it's my INTJ personality but my current SO and I talked about nearly all of that stuff... before we even were officially dating but just going on dates.
I didn't want to fall for someone who had completely different life interest/direction. Some things are just easier and being aligned on major life things is definitely one of those things.
I'd recommend anyone curious about "what to talk about" to look at this list (http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/questions-to-ask-when-preparing-for-marriage) of questions. The first two sections are very specific to Christians but the rest is generalizable to any serious relationship.
-
I never understand why everyone is in such a hurry for happily never after - other than for the children of course - but that's another decision that usually isn't well thought out. I was single for years and so darned happy. Now, married to the man of my dreams - really! Still wish I was single - with him, just not married. Why?? Who knows?? If it weren't for the money issues, I'd suggest we live in two house - next door to each other. Together but separate.
-
Maybe people just aren't as easy to please as they used to be and hold more lofty expectations of marriage and life in general. So I would say that a higher divorce rate isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing.
I was listening to a Freakanomics podcast about marriage a few weeks ago and it touched on this. The one guy suggested that there were more marriages of convenience or marriages based on the man earning a good income in past decades. Whereas now people prioritize a partner who shares their interests and values, since both individuals can usually earn a decent income.
-
Maybe people just aren't as easy to please as they used to be and hold more lofty expectations of marriage and life in general. So I would say that a higher divorce rate isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing.
I was listening to a Freakanomics podcast about marriage a few weeks ago and it touched on this. The one guy suggested that there were more marriages of convenience or marriages based on the man earning a good income in past decades. Whereas now people prioritize a partner who shares their interests and values, since both individuals can usually earn a decent income.
That makes sense, and with both people able to make a decent income, each is more free to leave if things turn south. Personally I like this better than previous times where you were stuck with a decision you made in your youth (or if you go far enough back, a decision your parents made for you when you were really young).
I also think divorce laws have become too punitive to the breadwinner, since as I mentioned before I have heard a lot of pretty bad stories. I'm not against alimony for SAHM's or child support, but sometimes the law gets outright ridiculous.
-
I also hated the concept of separating who had to pay what bills. I found it easier to pool our money. This isn't to say it is not possible or that it can't be done easily - but my fear was if she decided to stop paying some bills or did pay them all, how would I know? Or how would I handle it if she stopped contributing to our joint account for bills?
You didn't trust her enough to pay bills and contribute to your account, so you decided to trust her with all your money?
Huh?
-
I also hated the concept of separating who had to pay what bills. I found it easier to pool our money. This isn't to say it is not possible or that it can't be done easily - but my fear was if she decided to stop paying some bills or did pay them all, how would I know? Or how would I handle it if she stopped contributing to our joint account for bills?
You didn't trust her enough to pay bills and contribute to your account, so you decided to trust her with all your money?
Huh?
No one said emotions are rational. But the thoughts were surrounding if an issue in the marriage came up and things started to deteriorate.
Hey, she didn't like the way I managed the bills. I never updated the checkbook because I always did on-line banking. So, she took it over for awhile and then got tired of doing it so now I do it again.
-
Hey, all good. Whatever works for you guys!
-
Wow, this thread has been quite a read. My condolences to everyone who has had a rough time of it.
Since this seems to be a fairly poorly represented view (that of the happily married, pre-nup-less) I'll share my own situation. I'm sure some of you will consider me hopelessly naive.. and maybe I am. Things seem to be going well so far though, and what else can you really say with certainty?
DH and I have been married for a couple years now, but we dated for nine years prior to this. I recommend this wholeheartedly - I really know the guy, and he knows me. We are the best of friends, and are admittedly lucky that we grew together, not apart, particularly since we started dated when we were so young.
We've both taken turns supporting the other, mostly while going to school. We're now DINKs, and plan to keep it that way, which I would say is a huge advantage - nothing wrong with having kids if you want to, but not having to deal with the stress/decisions/financial strain/energy drain that comes along with that gives you more resources to put towards your relationship and the life you're building together.
We were dirt poor pretty much up until last year when the whole post-secondary schooling thing was done with, so we've lived through that together, and neither of us brought much by way of assets with us to the party. We technically have separate accounts, but I manage our finances so I've always had access to his. I try to keep him in the loop, and he's involved in any major decisions, but mostly he's not terribly interested, and trusts me to handle things. Fortunately for him, I am worthy of that trust.
We talk frequently about our goals and values, and stay very much on the same page. If for some reason we ever did split up, existing assets would be split 50/50. Neither of us has really given anything up for the other's benefit career wise, so alimony would not be an issue. Our pay is pretty similar right now, and if one of us ended up making more, good for them for succeeding in that - no reason why the other should benefit from that outside of a relationship.
All that being said, I definitely understand the cynicism coming from many of you. Call me cocky, but I don't see great chances for long term success for many of the other couples I know, and I think many of them should be concerned about the sorts of things that have been brought up here. I just don't think it applies to me ;)
-
We were dirt poor pretty much up until last year when the whole post-secondary schooling thing was done with, so we've lived through that together, and neither of us brought much by way of assets with us to the party. We technically have separate accounts, but I manage our finances so I've always had access to his. I try to keep him in the loop, and he's involved in any major decisions, but mostly he's not terribly interested, and trusts me to handle things. Fortunately for him, I am worthy of that trust.
This situation is very similar to my own (met and dated for many years when young, married when neither has assets, I've handled most finances since before marraige)
I've pondered this thread off and on as it pops back onto the radar, and I think age and premarital assets likely affects the attitude toward pre-nups and whether they are prudent/desirable. When the Mr. and I were married neither one of us had much skin in the financial game. It was uncertain whether one or both of us might go back to school, we both thought we might want kids, but hadn't fully committed, we weren't settled in any one geographic location, we had new jobs (with a good ability to translocate) but no assets beyond two pretty crappy second hand vehicles we'd each inherited from grandparents.
Any pre-nup would have been wildly speculative at best, and so it wouldn't even have occurred to me to look into one.
-
Someone posted earlier in this tread that it was mostly men posting. I agree that it is most often men who pay the highest price (financial and otherwise) in a divorce. Despite appearances it's not about men versus women. It's about financially responsible versus financially irresponsible people.
I am a woman. I have been divorced twice. Both time I have had to split MY hard earned net worth with my ex-husbands. Why did this happen? Because both time I came into the marriages with greater assets and continued to save/invest my earned assets while they spent theirs frivolously. In the divorce we split up what should have been my money, while their money had all been dissipated on worthless, self-indulgent choices. In the second divorce, despite the fact that I stayed home to raise our child, I had to split the proceeds of a home I bought with premarital funds. Meanwhile, I got zero alimony, have no income and my ex-husband makes $300k a year.
Prior to the first marriage I had a net worth of $400k. My first husband had a net worth which was a negative number. After the divorce we each had a net worth of $200k. Prior to my second marriage I had a net worth of $300k. My second husband had a net worth of zero. After the divorce we each had a net worth of $100k because we each spent $50 on attorneys. I have scraped and clawed my way up back up to a net worth of $400k, which is where I was in my 20s. I would be retired by now if I had never gotten married. I will never get married again.
The only thing more damaging than getting married to someone without a prenup is having children with a person (with or without getting married.) Prenups won't protect you from child related issues. If you are the more responsible spouse the child will be used against you as a financial weapon forever.
My children have been raised in a Mustachian lifestyle and are aware of these dangers. My son has committed to only get married with a prenup and plans to make sure he has no children. I will suggest to my daughter that she have a child via a sperm donor prior to any marriage, and that she also not get married without a prenup.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
+1 sister
I think the other thing that disturbs me about this thread is the "money over people" attitude. Although this is an ER forum, I would put forth the idea that money should not be the most important thing you accumulate in life. As a SAHM, I would have dramatic financial changes if my husband wanted a divorce, but my biggest regret wouldn't be the loss of net worth or lifestyle. We see on this forum that many people live happy lives on "poverty" levels of spending. My regrets and worries would be for my marriage, for my children, and for my spouse. To quote Grandpa George in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [family], there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy? " *quote changed for relevance.
Of course sometimes divorce (and other bad things) happen to good people. The money is the easiest thing to fix. The hurt, pain, and sadness is much harder. Ask yourself what would MMM do? He's already answered that:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/10/if-i-woke-up-broke/
+1 to this. Great quote from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. DH and I each make more than 6 figures. He is making more because he puts more into his career than I can as a Mom with a toddler and another on the way (I'm just in maintain mode for the time being). If I were to be a SAHM at some point, I would demand my 50% of the assets we accumulated together as it is half mine (he maintains his single man money in his own accounts and never commingled with our joint assets...it's not even in our FI calculations). I might need temporary alimony...but if I filed divorce from him (assuming it was something I just wanted, not because he hit me or cheated on me (which he doesn't), then I don't want alimony. It would be my choice to leave. I'm a big girl. If he left me because he "felt" like it, you better believe I'd take him to the cleaners. More out my own anger that he did this to our family.
However, my biggest issue and fear is the family dynamic. I don't give a damn about money at the end of the day, even though I might participate in this forum. I already feel like we have more than enough. My number one priority in life is my marriage because it actually feeds our quality of life, children's well being and our net worth. If I got divorced, I would feel like I lost everything already....who gives a flip about money?
-
I will suggest to my daughter that she have a child via a sperm donor prior to any marriage, and that she also not get married without a prenup.
Forgive me, but that seems a pretty extreme reaction to your poor choices. What if you taught her to make better choices in a mate instead?
-
I had an early marriage that ended with no money and no alimony- it didn't even occur to me as an option. Hubby had 2 prior marriages, also ending with asset-free amicable divorces. These all happened before kids, assets, or high-paying jobs. We knew each other for 8-9 yrs before getting married and went into this with the purpose of raising a family together. Because I got super into pf about 4 years ago, we've also managed to accumulate a modest stache. If (god forbid) something happened to one of us, the survivor would likely not legally remarry or would use a prenup to protect assets for our kids. So far, we've been happily married and best friends for 5.5 years and work every day to continue growing together.
-
I will suggest to my daughter that she have a child via a sperm donor prior to any marriage, and that she also not get married without a prenup.
Forgive me, but that seems a pretty extreme reaction to your poor choices. What if you taught her to make better choices in a mate instead?
+1
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
+1 sister
I think the other thing that disturbs me about this thread is the "money over people" attitude. Although this is an ER forum, I would put forth the idea that money should not be the most important thing you accumulate in life. As a SAHM, I would have dramatic financial changes if my husband wanted a divorce, but my biggest regret wouldn't be the loss of net worth or lifestyle. We see on this forum that many people live happy lives on "poverty" levels of spending. My regrets and worries would be for my marriage, for my children, and for my spouse. To quote Grandpa George in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [family], there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy? " *quote changed for relevance.
Of course sometimes divorce (and other bad things) happen to good people. The money is the easiest thing to fix. The hurt, pain, and sadness is much harder. Ask yourself what would MMM do? He's already answered that:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/10/if-i-woke-up-broke/
+1 to this. Great quote from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. DH and I each make more than 6 figures. He is making more because he puts more into his career than I can as a Mom with a toddler and another on the way (I'm just in maintain mode for the time being). If I were to be a SAHM at some point, I would demand my 50% of the assets we accumulated together as it is half mine (he maintains his single man money in his own accounts and never commingled with our joint assets...it's not even in our FI calculations). I might need temporary alimony...but if I filed divorce from him (assuming it was something I just wanted, not because he hit me or cheated on me (which he doesn't), then I don't want alimony. It would be my choice to leave. I'm a big girl. If he left me because he "felt" like it, you better believe I'd take him to the cleaners. More out my own anger that he did this to our family.
However, my biggest issue and fear is the family dynamic. I don't give a damn about money at the end of the day, even though I might participate in this forum. I already feel like we have more than enough. My number one priority in life is my marriage because it actually feeds our quality of life, children's well being and our net worth. If I got divorced, I would feel like I lost everything already....who gives a flip about money?
-1 To this.
I too have been following this thread for some time. One thing that I think is lost on many happily married folks is that divorce is often thrust upon people (myself included) many times completely against our will and sometimes out of the blue. Getting married is a mutual decision, where as one party in a marriage can decide to file for divorce and there is nothing the other party can do about it. Another thing that I think many of the younger people fail to realize is that people change over time. That wonderful soul mate you have today could be a completely different person 15 or 20 years down the road (so may you, I might add). And when you are twenty years or so into a marriage, that's when the financial hit can be devastating.
I still see the value in a nice loving relationship, but I have been awakened to the enormous risks of a long term legal marriage. Why do I have to become legally and financially entangled with another person just to have a relationship with them? Its like having a permanent business partner that you are forever obligated to, only the legal entanglements are not determined by straight-up contract law, there is a legacy of presumptions and biases that apply to marital law which can result in great injustices.
PS - In my opinion people who say money is no big deal are people who usually have plenty of money and have not had to struggle to keep their heads above water. When you work and sweat your life away for 40 years or so just to build a modest nest egg, when you are nearing the end of your working career, then you are forced to give half of it away PLUS support the other person for several more years, money tends to be a MUCH BIGGER DEAL.
-
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
My fiance and I have been together 7 years now and will be getting a prenup before we get married this summer. We've always kept our finances separate and didn't want that to change when we get married. I'm not sure who will benefit the most in the long run (she has more inheritance, my future earnings are likely higher) but the main thing is the peace of mind it brings now. She's not a crazy spender (saves roughly 25%) but she does have certain spending habits that would really bug me if it was "our" money she was spending rather than "her" money. Right now I can maybe poke her a bit about it and help her question if she REALLY needs it or whatever, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me much so I don't care. Having it separate has reduced the potential for conflict about money significantly.
As for how we got there... when we started dating we both had our own income stream and always kept it separate. When we started talking about getting married, we discussed how we wanted to do finances going forward and we both liked the fact they were separate and wanted to keep it that way. The house will be 50/50 but food, utilities, etc are calculated and split and the person who paid less that month transfers money to the other person to make up the difference. There was a period I was going to school and had insufficient income and she loaned me a bit of money to help me through the last bit rather than taking out a school loan and we tracked that as a 0% loan that I paid off once I finished.
It might sound a bit cold but I think it has been a great way to remove a potential stressor from the relationship. We ARE in it together so if something did happen such that one person couldn't work or something we'd revisit this approach. But until something like that happens, we are two working adults that are happy to avoid the potential stress/arguments/whatever that can result from merging finances.
-
The only thing more damaging than getting married to someone without a prenup is having children with a person (with or without getting married.) Prenups won't protect you from child related issues. If you are the more responsible spouse the child will be used against you as a financial weapon forever.
My children have been raised in a Mustachian lifestyle and are aware of these dangers. My son has committed to only get married with a prenup and plans to make sure he has no children. I will suggest to my daughter that she have a child via a sperm donor prior to any marriage, and that she also not get married without a prenup.
While I have some sympathy for your situation I would say that what you have taught your children and brought into their lives is not something I can admire.
Shit happens. You need to get past the shit you can't control and not let it colour your world to the point you live in the stink because the only ones who suffer there are the ones you care about who are standing with you.
What I do know is that a kid who believes that relationships are doomed to fail will more than likely live the self-fulfilling prophecy out. The fact is that happy relationships and marriages exist and the skill set you are teaching is not likely to lead in that direction. You aren't protecting your kids, you are setting them up for failure imo.
-
This thread is a bit off-putting as a sahm. Actually in my head I cursing at most of you and calling you lots of nasty names, to be honest.
Damn right I should get half our net worth if we divorce. Neither of us brought anything in to the marriage (scratch that... H brought nothing and I brought a paid off car) as we married out of college. Why the hell is he more entitled to that money than I am? He couldn't work the job he is working and make the money he is making if I weren't at home doing all the child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. We made the joint decision that I stay at home, and he agreed because of the benefits to him and our kids.
If we get divorced after I have been at home for ten or 20 years, yes he should pay me temporary alimony. I have an engineering degree so decent income potential but I can't just jump back into a technical (or any) field after a decade at home. Again, joint decision that I stay home, he knew the potential consequences ahead of time.
+1 sister
I think the other thing that disturbs me about this thread is the "money over people" attitude. Although this is an ER forum, I would put forth the idea that money should not be the most important thing you accumulate in life. As a SAHM, I would have dramatic financial changes if my husband wanted a divorce, but my biggest regret wouldn't be the loss of net worth or lifestyle. We see on this forum that many people live happy lives on "poverty" levels of spending. My regrets and worries would be for my marriage, for my children, and for my spouse. To quote Grandpa George in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) "There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this [family], there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy? " *quote changed for relevance.
Of course sometimes divorce (and other bad things) happen to good people. The money is the easiest thing to fix. The hurt, pain, and sadness is much harder. Ask yourself what would MMM do? He's already answered that:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/10/if-i-woke-up-broke/
+1 to this. Great quote from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. DH and I each make more than 6 figures. He is making more because he puts more into his career than I can as a Mom with a toddler and another on the way (I'm just in maintain mode for the time being). If I were to be a SAHM at some point, I would demand my 50% of the assets we accumulated together as it is half mine (he maintains his single man money in his own accounts and never commingled with our joint assets...it's not even in our FI calculations). I might need temporary alimony...but if I filed divorce from him (assuming it was something I just wanted, not because he hit me or cheated on me (which he doesn't), then I don't want alimony. It would be my choice to leave. I'm a big girl. If he left me because he "felt" like it, you better believe I'd take him to the cleaners. More out my own anger that he did this to our family.
However, my biggest issue and fear is the family dynamic. I don't give a damn about money at the end of the day, even though I might participate in this forum. I already feel like we have more than enough. My number one priority in life is my marriage because it actually feeds our quality of life, children's well being and our net worth. If I got divorced, I would feel like I lost everything already....who gives a flip about money?
-1 To this.
I too have been following this thread for some time. One thing that I think is lost on many happily married folks is that divorce is often thrust upon people (myself included) many times completely against our will and sometimes out of the blue. Getting married is a mutual decision, where as one party in a marriage can decide to file for divorce and there is nothing the other party can do about it. Another thing that I think many of the younger people fail to realize is that people change over time. That wonderful soul mate you have today could be a completely different person 15 or 20 years down the road (so may you, I might add). And when you are twenty years or so into a marriage, that's when the financial hit can be devastating.
I still see the value in a nice loving relationship, but I have been awakened to the enormous risks of a long term legal marriage. Why do I have to become legally and financially entangled with another person just to have a relationship with them? Its like having a permanent business partner that you are forever obligated to, only the legal entanglements are not determined by straight-up contract law, there is a legacy of presumptions and biases that apply to marital law which can result in great injustices.
PS - In my opinion people who say money is no big deal are people who usually have plenty of money and have not had to struggle to keep their heads above water. When you work and sweat your life away for 40 years or so just to build a modest nest egg, when you are nearing the end of your working career, then you are forced to give half of it away PLUS support the other person for several more years, money tends to be a MUCH BIGGER DEAL.
Yes, it can come from out of the blue, but that is incredibly rare! Teeny tiny percent rare. Most of the time, people know there are problems they just don't think they are that bad. I've never had a divorced friend who couldn't at least in retrospect see the issues that had been there. Even the friend currently getting a divorce (initiated by his wife, not him) because his wife cheated on him with his best friend.
Agree people change over time - that's why I didn't get married young (when more changes are happening), waited till I was 32 and dated 4 years. Statistically, I'm less likely to get divorced than someone who married under 25.
When considering the financial hit, don't forget to compare yourself to where you would have been had you not married...without joint expense sharing, or someone to take care of laundry/meals so you could focus on getting ahead at work.
You don't have to get legally entangled for a relationship (here in the states). You just must, in order to be ethical, be upfront with each person you wish to date that you will never marry. That's totally your perogative. You just need to choose people that are ok with this particular requirement of yours. My husband has a friend that feels this way after a divorce. As long as he's not leading any women on and promising what he won't give, no harm no foul.
Finally, it can be straight up contract law if you have a fair prenup. If you have an unfair prenup - well, I'm sorry, why would you do that? That's shady and not right. And you can avoid these "injustices" you describe, with more than just a prenup. Don't have one partner stay at home if you don't like how the law will treat you afterwards. If they say they want to, explain (before marriage and after) that is a complete deal breaker for you and that you will file for divorce if they don't work. (Also don't swear to marry for "richer or poorer" since you don't mean it.) Marriage is a contract and if you don't like the risks, don't accept the bet.
-
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
-
I'm 38, divorced 3 years. While I have no financial complaints about my marriage or my divorce, I'll do things completely differently in the unlikely event I'm in a committed relationship in the future.
I got married at 23; we'd been together since I was 20. We combined our finances before we got married, and our approach was always that all income from our primary jobs was joint income. We had a long term plan for financial independence. That was mostly initiated by him, but I got on board pretty quickly. Different spending styles was never much of an issue. Well, there was that time I insisted on getting the bathroom renovated... I'm not sure he ever understood how important that was to me... But anyway, financially our divorce was just a reverse of our marriage. Everything had been "ours", so we split everything 50/50. After splitting the household stuff, purchases to fill out our separate households came out of the joint account.
Honestly, what with the emotional wreckage of our marriage ending, I found the details of splitting the assets to be FUN. I'll take any excuse to build a spreadsheet.
For any future relationship though - no way. My ex-husband and I built our net worth together, part of our shared mission. I had nothing (financially speaking) before my marriage; I have a nice-sized pile of something now. And it's MINE.
-
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.
I like "completed". Just because something ended, doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing while it lasted.
-
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.
I like "completed". Just because something ended, doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing while it lasted.
You mean like Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's "conscious uncoupling"? ;-)
-
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.
I like "completed". Just because something ended, doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing while it lasted.
You mean like Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's "conscious uncoupling"? ;-)
Nah that's just wanky :-P
-
This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). Plus, the divorce rate for first marriages in the US is a bit over 40%. That means almost 60% last - across the board. Graduating college reduces the risk of divorce by 25%. Making over $50k reduces it by 30%. Waiting till you're at least 25 year old, another 25%. If you don't want to marry then don't, but please don't let the horror stories scare you away from something so thoroughly and wonderfully awesome :)
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). ...
Even though my marriage ended, I still think it was great! Sure, the last bit wasn't so fun, but I wouldn't do anything differently given the chance.
Um, except that I learned an awful lot and see better in hindsight and think I would do much better at marriage if I had a do-over with current knowledge. But I'm happily single and that's ok too. :)
-
Some couples live like they are married but don't actually make it legal. That's what my lady and I are doing. We are getting rings as a sign of commitment to each other.
As far as I can tell, the only downside to not making it legal (assuming you aren't interested) is if one wants to get on a health care plan from the other's work. And some people may judge you. For other things you can fill out easy forms that give power of attorney for health care and financial stuff.
Anyone considering this should check to see if their state recognizes common law marriage; mine doesn't.
I don't think there is anything wrong with legal marriage; it's just not for everyone :)
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). Plus, the divorce rate for first marriages in the US is a bit over 40%. That means almost 60% last - across the board. Graduating college reduces the risk of divorce by 25%. Making over $50k reduces it by 30%. Waiting till you're at least 25 year old, another 25%. If you don't want to marry then don't, but please don't let the horror stories scare you away from something so thoroughly and wonderfully awesome :)
+1 I have been extremely happily coupled for the past 28 years. We met when I was still a teenager and later had two wonderful children.
-
As far as I can tell, the only downside to not making it legal (assuming you aren't interested) is if one wants to get on a health care plan from the other's work. And some people may judge you. For other things you can fill out easy forms that give power of attorney for health care and financial stuff.
Another big one is survivor benefits, such as in Social Security, military, or certain pensions. Without a legal marriage, a partner could be left with nothing vs. significant lifetime benefits for a spouse.
-
Even though my marriage ended, I still think it was great! Sure, the last bit wasn't so fun, but I wouldn't do anything differently given the chance.
Um, except that I learned an awful lot and see better in hindsight and think I would do much better at marriage if I had a do-over with current knowledge. But I'm happily single and that's ok too. :)
Thank you for that! That's what I am hoping to be able to say in a couple of months from now.
-
Ex-hubby and I had a very harmonious divorce after 17 years of marriage (20 years together). Both working full time, both with government pensions in our future, no kids, and no debts other than a house we purchased a year before we divorced. I bought him out of the house (and kept the 6 pets), he moved onto our (paid for) sailboat and we split any joint non-investment money we had 50/50. I kept my pension and investments (IRAs, 457, bonds) and he kept his. He got cash from me for the house, I got a couple of roomies to help with the mortgage and bills, and we both ended up happily ever after. I consider both my marriage and my divorce great successes, but after reading some of the stories here I think I'll stay single forever :-)!
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.
I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.
-
^In any case make sure you have a will (a real one, drawn up properly by an attorney) so there are not lingering doubts about who gets what. Yes, I KNOW you don't want to think about dying or who "gets" you kids or your money or your stuff when you kick off, but you need to get that done this week anyway. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended."
I agree with this sentiment as well. The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!
Like everything, there is a risk and reward. In our group of friends, five of us are married. one has one what I would call a great marriage. Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working). they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.
two have ok marriages. they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.
one has a marriage where they hardly see each other. so they are more just existing.
and then there is us.
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!
Like everything, there is a risk and reward. In our group of friends, five of us are married. one has one what I would call a great marriage. Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working). they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.
two have ok marriages. they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.
one has a marriage where they hardly see each other. so they are more just existing.
and then there is us.
:(
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.
I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.
Actually, I don't think power of attorney would affect the hospital visits. A power of attorney just lets you have the right to make certain legal decisions on behalf of the person, such as medical decisions about their care if incapcitated. That said, most hospitals probably wouldn't keep you out, even though you have no right to insist to be there.
Re inheritance, eeks, what state do you live in? A number of states have lower thresholds than the federal one. My state the threshold is $1 million.
The rights from marriage include: survivor's benefits, social security/medicare/disability benefits, tax-free employer provided health care benefits, possible better tax treatment (this really depends where you fall on the marriage penalty/bonus chart), additional rights to transfer inherited retirement benefits to an IRA or retirement plan (deferring taxation and not requiring miniumum distribution), right to take FMLA for an ill partner, right to petition for immigration (likely not a problem for you), right to extend COBRA to a partner, certain life estate trusts are only open to married couples, legal protections such as marital communications privilege (which means a court can't force the person to testify against you...although if they're pissed they can opt to do so anyway. This is likely why Hernandez was trying to marry his fiance...).
This is just a quick summary, you can google for more. It may not still be for you, but you should be fully aware of the rights and obligations.
-
Like everything, there is a risk and reward. In our group of friends, five of us are married. one has one what I would call a great marriage. Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working). they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.
two have ok marriages. they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.
one has a marriage where they hardly see each other. so they are more just existing.
and then there is us.
:(
I should clarify that - I think the two marriages are good and the arguments are not knock out drag out ones. They are just a lot of difference of opinions. I think one of the two has learned to deal with it a lot better than the other. Of course, they have been married for almost 10 more years :)
The one that hardly see each other are due to work schedules but when they are together they are happy. There's just a lot going on (one set of grandparents is deceased and the other set really isn't helping out that much so they are struggling with time management) which is impacting how often they can do things they want. I think if their schedules were more in line, they'd be much happier than they are.
-
*Runs screaming from this thread*
This makes me never want to get married. Never ever ever!
It makes me want to not get divorced!
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.
I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.
Actually, I don't think power of attorney would affect the hospital visits. A power of attorney just lets you have the right to make certain legal decisions on behalf of the person, such as medical decisions about their care if incapcitated. That said, most hospitals probably wouldn't keep you out, even though you have no right to insist to be there.
Re inheritance, eeks, what state do you live in? A number of states have lower thresholds than the federal one. My state the threshold is $1 million.
The rights from marriage include: survivor's benefits, social security/medicare/disability benefits, tax-free employer provided health care benefits, possible better tax treatment (this really depends where you fall on the marriage penalty/bonus chart), additional rights to transfer inherited retirement benefits to an IRA or retirement plan (deferring taxation and not requiring miniumum distribution), right to take FMLA for an ill partner, right to petition for immigration (likely not a problem for you), right to extend COBRA to a partner, certain life estate trusts are only open to married couples, legal protections such as marital communications privilege (which means a court can't force the person to testify against you...although if they're pissed they can opt to do so anyway. This is likely why Hernandez was trying to marry his fiance...).
This is just a quick summary, you can google for more. It may not still be for you, but you should be fully aware of the rights and obligations.
Thanks for listing these topics for me and others to think about. I have already looked into a lot of them and decided for our situation they would not be a big benefit; I'll look into the ones I haven't yet. I have very little of the benefits that you can only leave to a spouse. We are fairly young (mid and late 20's) and we may change our minds as we get older. Unmarried couples can change their minds and decide to get married anytime.
I live in CA; no estate or inheritance tax from the state.
I think you are right about the health care power of attorney. From what I found it is up to the hospital's visitation policy. I think there is a new law that puts some limits on federally funded hospitals restricting visits. Seems weird that you can give a person the authority to make all your health care decisions, and that person may not be allowed to visit you in the hospital. I may asks our local hospitals about their policies.
-
I think you are right about the health care power of attorney. From what I found it is up to the hospital's visitation policy. I think there is a new law that puts some limits on federally funded hospitals restricting visits. Seems weird that you can give a person the authority to make all your health care decisions, and that person may not be allowed to visit you in the hospital. I may asks our local hospitals about their policies.
Yep, that's a good call to know. From my doctor friends, they've said they wouldn't kick out non-family, but I can see rare circumstances it might happen (and it's probably nurses enforcing it not doctors). Also forgot to mention bereavement leave, not usually granted for unmarried couples (for not just the partner, but also the partner's relatives). Before engagement, DH couldn't take time off to travel with me to my cousin's funeral. He just started a new job and didn't have the option of using vacation days either. I never thought my cousin would pass away early (low 30s).
-
Makes me glad I put stipulations on when I said 'yes' to ex-boyfriend asking me to marry him three years ago. Ex-boyfriend had lots of debts and was a bit of a spendthrift, so I told him he had to have a positive net worth (ie, take care of the debts) before I would marry him.
I think even then I had started to see the signs that we were not right for each other, but couldn't admit it to myself. But I knew that the idea of marrying him made me very nervous with the way his finances currently were.
It took me a while, but I finally broke up with him a few months ago. SOOOO glad we never married, especially after reading this thread!
My parents divorced when I was 12, and it was long, drawn out, and bitter. I don't think they stopped fighting about money until I was well into my 20s, so I am leary of marriage by default.
-
@GamerGirl
One advantage of not marrying young (or at the end of undergrad, like we did), is that you can get an idea of the other person's financial style. And smart of you to show that financial responsibility is a priority for you. My condolences that he didn't manage his money better, and it ended.
-
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
My fiance and I have been together 7 years now and will be getting a prenup before we get married this summer. We've always kept our finances separate and didn't want that to change when we get married. I'm not sure who will benefit the most in the long run (she has more inheritance, my future earnings are likely higher) but the main thing is the peace of mind it brings now. She's not a crazy spender (saves roughly 25%) but she does have certain spending habits that would really bug me if it was "our" money she was spending rather than "her" money. Right now I can maybe poke her a bit about it and help her question if she REALLY needs it or whatever, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me much so I don't care. Having it separate has reduced the potential for conflict about money significantly.
As for how we got there... when we started dating we both had our own income stream and always kept it separate. When we started talking about getting married, we discussed how we wanted to do finances going forward and we both liked the fact they were separate and wanted to keep it that way. The house will be 50/50 but food, utilities, etc are calculated and split and the person who paid less that month transfers money to the other person to make up the difference. There was a period I was going to school and had insufficient income and she loaned me a bit of money to help me through the last bit rather than taking out a school loan and we tracked that as a 0% loan that I paid off once I finished.
It might sound a bit cold but I think it has been a great way to remove a potential stressor from the relationship. We ARE in it together so if something did happen such that one person couldn't work or something we'd revisit this approach. But until something like that happens, we are two working adults that are happy to avoid the potential stress/arguments/whatever that can result from merging finances.
@ Vilgan: Thanks for sharing your story. Wondering do you ever hear from others how keeping your finances separate shows that you do not care about each other? Or that you do not trust each other completely? Curious to how you and anyone else willing to share has address these concerns when asked by family or close friends.
@ All: If you previously wanted to merge finances but later decided against it, do you mind sharing why? Would love to hear more about your mindset and how the decision to go either way affected your relationship too. Thanks!
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
-
@wtjbatman I hope you explained to her all 17 pages of size 6 font terms and conditions appended to that agreement.
-
But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in. If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection). But then again, I also waited until I was 21 to drink, never did drugs, and my wife is the only women I've been with.
I have a prenup. When I met my husband, I was still in college and he had a start up that was just starting to do well. Because ours was an international romance, we knew that we had to make a decision early on about whether we wanted to give it a go, get married and have one of us emigrate. We chose to get married. I left Canada for the USA, dropping out of school and leaving family, stuff, scholarships in my dust.
A prenup seemed like a reasonable and intelligent decision. It had nothing to do with being "all in" - just the realization that life isn't a fairy tale. The worst case scenario in my case was that I was stuck in a foreign country with no money, no options, no job and no way to get back home or recover the lost time/money.
The worst case scenario for him was that I would own half his business and claim alimony.
Our prenup protected his premarital assets and also gave me a lump sum settlement to return home.
In the first few years of marriage, we had a perfect exit route. If either one of us was unhappy with our choice, we could leave and take an eraser to the whole thing. But we didn't. Why? Because we took our marriage seriously. We both wanted to be there 100%.
I don't really understand the mentality that being "all in" means you create a marriage that is a trap for your finances. Why does there need to be some kind of financial punishment in place in order for a person to be 100% invested in the marriage? If the only thing keeping a person in the marriage is the idea that they will lose 50% of their assets, then that's not "all in."
These days, my husband has sold his business and comingled the funds. I make more than he does, but we both gave up alimony in the prenup. Circumstances changed - the prenup that was in his favor early on is now to his detriment. I've offered to amend it with a postnup, but he doesn't want to. So maybe you are right in a way - in his mind, when we signed the prenup, perhaps he wasn't "all in" - and now he is, and can't imagine needing a postnup.
-
Interesting perspective, cpa-cat.
-
A buddy of mine has been divorced five times. The fifth time he helped his wife get an apartment and lent her his credit card for a couple weeks. No attorneys. When I asked how he managed five divorces he said "I made it a point to never marry a girl I couldn't amicably divorce!"
I'm more old fashioned. Too many people seem to think the grass is greener on the outside of a marriage. It is hard, hard work and can be a lot of grief, but you just have to work it out. For every marriage I have seen end for a supposedly good reason, others have survived the same drama and come out stronger. Humans are frail. They screw up.
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
Great idea! I love it! :D
-
I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.
But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.
Some states, if you keep the assets completely separate do not include inheritances as martial property even if the asset is inherited while married.
Though I do have to ask why you would think that if a couple chose to have one partner stay home and the other support them, if after 10-20 years the SAHS should not get alimony? Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
Great idea! I love it! :D
I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)
-
This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.
I'm with you MrsFF. My husband deserves something special.
-
Count me as another who will never marry. At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences. So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)
Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.
I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.
Not for private hospitals. There have been lawsuits over it where a legal power of attorney was not allowed in the hospital because the couple was gay and it was a Catholic hospital.
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
Make sure you point out the option to renew when the contract expires! That will seal the deal ;-)
Then again, the Dutch are not known as great romantics and most of the people I know in the Netherlands also think our diamond engagement ring tradition is just silly (which is quite ironic, when you consider which company got it all started in the US . . . .)
-
I have read of instances where family have barred a gay or unmarried partner visiting rights to a hospitalized SO. Check your state laws. When money, religious beliefs or prejudice comes into the equation people can be unbelievably cruel.
-
This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.
This one made me laugh. Awesome quote!
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
Great idea! I love it! :D
I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)
The funny thing is, asking someone to marry you is almost the same thing. Just substitute "indefinite" for "fixed".
-
I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.
See, I agree with this.
I've seen some marriages at my age that just end, they kind of peter out. The couple has their children raised, they've completed that work, and are ready for a different stage of life. I guess that sometimes the partner who is a decent parent isn't the partner you want to take into the next phase of your life.
And frankly, in more than one case it was a Mustachean partner wanted more out than the other one: he retired early while the spendier, working partner kept slaving away at the 9 to 5. That ball and chain limited where they could go, adventures they could have as a couple.
-
Though I do have to ask why you would think that if a couple chose to have one partner stay home and the other support them, if after 10-20 years the SAHS should not get alimony?
I think every situation will have circumstances that dictate what is equitable. In general I favor rehabilitative alimony, but lifetime alimony is unfair in many cases (and it's often applied arbitrarily, which is infuriating).
For example, should a 40-year old woman with a JD and PhD, married for 20 years and then divorced, receive lifetime alimony from her high-earning former spouse simply because she was a SAHM for the last 5 years or so of the marriage? I'd say no, but it could easily happen in my state. At the same time, should a 65 year old woman be expected to enter the workforce after being supported entirely by her husband their entire 20+ year marriage? Again, I'd say no, that person deserves lifetime alimony.
Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.
I agree. But that's sometimes easier said than done. For example, what if your spouse won't go to work? Isn't that alone ample reason to end a marriage, and now you're dealing with divorce and its consequences, including paying alimony to a non-working spouse. That's what mine did. Even though she was a capable professional, with a degree, lots of experience and high earning potential. Not only would she not go back to work, once our separation started, her attorney of course insisted that she not even try to find work, in order to secure the most favorable custody and alimony decision they could get. Like I said, it's infuriating.
-
For example, should a 40-year old woman with a JD and PhD, married for 20 years and then divorced, receive lifetime alimony from her high-earning former spouse simply because she was a SAHM for the last 5 years or so of the marriage? I'd say no, but it could easily happen in my state. At the same time, should a 65 year old woman be expected to enter the workforce after being supported entirely by her husband their entire 20+ year marriage? Again, I'd say no, that person deserves lifetime alimony.
So work to change the laws in your state rather than complaining here! In my state, what you describe is what would happen. Alimony is limited to not more than a fixed percent determined based on the length of the marriage:
Under 5 years: <50%
5-10: <60%
10-15: 70%
15-20: 80%
20+: Court discretion
This means that my ex, who moved to London for a few years with his wife before coming back to the US, might be obligated to pay out for the fact that she couldn't really work there and advance her career. But, since he cheated on his wife with his best friend's wife when they returned to the US but before the 5 years were up, the alimony (if any is granted) would be limited to no more than 50%, or no more than 2.25 years (married ~4.5 years when the wife filed).
Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.
I agree. But that's sometimes easier said than done. For example, what if your spouse won't go to work? Isn't that alone ample reason to end a marriage, and now you're dealing with divorce and its consequences, including paying alimony to a non-working spouse.
Or another takeaway is that if someone just won't go back to work, to start the divorce sooner rather than waiting several years to see if they might magically change their mind. If you've only been out of the market for a year, then the court will look at it very differently (in my state, but I would surmise in other) very differently than a 20 year hiatus. And if the issue is that you agreed they'd take time off for the kids before school-age, but now now 5 years later are refusing to go back, then it is just a matter of being unhappy at when the bargain was called off, at the end of the 5 years when it might, depending on how the state handles it, favor the SAHS. (I can't believe lifetime alimony wouldn't be the exception here, though, rather than the rule.)
But also consider whether you've actually shown your SAHS you'd step up to the plate to help out with the kids, or whether you'd be expecting the SAHS to pick up a job and run frontline on the kids as well. Saw a post where the wife was expecting she'd still need to cook all the meals, take care of laundry, do all of the cleaning, get kids off to school and homework etc, while holding a job. And I do mean show before the job comes around, rather than waiting until after the job is started.
-
But also consider whether you've actually shown your SAHS you'd step up to the plate to help out with the kids, or whether you'd be expecting the SAHS to pick up a job and run frontline on the kids as well. Saw a post where the wife was expecting she'd still need to cook all the meals, take care of laundry, do all of the cleaning, get kids off to school and homework etc, while holding a job. And I do mean show before the job comes around, rather than waiting until after the job is started.
This. Also keep in mind that many women become SAHMs, with the full support of their husbands, without either of them really understanding what happens to one's job prospects after being out of the work force for 10 years.
-
I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.
But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.
As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.
* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.
Ouch. I think if I ever had to pay alimony to an ex to live like that I would just move to the Caribbean and tend bar to make barely enough to survive. Live the rest of my days on the beach instead of supporting a freeloader. Mai Thais and live in a bamboo shack on the water.
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
Great idea! I love it! :D
I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)
The funny thing is, asking someone to marry you is almost the same thing. Just substitute "indefinite" for "fixed".
It doesn't seem the same to me. With a cohabitation agreement, the couple sets the terms. With a marriage, the couple gets whatever terms the state has decided, unless they make a pre-nup. That seems like a huge difference.
-
Okay, this is going to come off very wrong... But... Why does being a SAHP automatically make it difficult to enter the workforce?
Q) What is the toughest task you have had to deal with at your last position?
A) One of my previous associates suffered from lack of experience and had a real knack for questioning authority. It was my job as his (or her) manager to ensure timely completion of tasks. Unfortunately, reward based practices proved to fail so I had to switch to disciplinary actions.
Q) How did you deal with an underfunded budget?
A) Our team was always funded minimally due to the corporations desire to eliminate long term debt and prepare funding for future endeavors. As such, we analyzed purchases carefully always looking for the best overvalue for the desired outcome. This required strategic planning.
Etc... Just look at being a SAHP as a job, list yourself as self employed until you re-enter the workforce. At least you'll get through the door at most places.
(and yes, this is partially in jest and partially from true belief).
-
Okay, this is going to come off very wrong... But... Why does being a SAHP automatically make it difficult to enter the workforce?
Q) What is the toughest task you have had to deal with at your last position?
A) One of my previous associates suffered from lack of experience and had a real knack for questioning authority. It was my job as his (or her) manager to ensure timely completion of tasks. Unfortunately, reward based practices proved to fail so I had to switch to disciplinary actions.
Q) How did you deal with an underfunded budget?
A) Our team was always funded minimally due to the corporations desire to eliminate long term debt and prepare funding for future endeavors. As such, we analyzed purchases carefully always looking for the best overvalue for the desired outcome. This required strategic planning.
Etc... Just look at being a SAHP as a job, list yourself as self employed until you re-enter the workforce. At least you'll get through the door at most places.
(and yes, this is partially in jest and partially from true belief).
These are all great answers, but unfortunately they don't actually work with hiring managers.
-
Insanity, have you triead that tactic yourself? That sounds great on paper but I bet manager would not be amused if you seem like you are trying to hide the gap. In real life, a gap DOES cause issues. First from not have direct current experience (stale skills) from being out of the workforce, second from the "career gap" (you miss out on seniority raises/job positions).
I say this from personal experience of unemployment. I had plenty to talk about because I worked a part-time job in a different field (teaching ethics & business law) I could translate experience to the jobs for which I was applying (practicing health care law), but it still was a huge hurdle and I wasn't out all that long. Furthermore, your direct skills weaken and you require additional education/training to stay current. No matter what the fancy words, budgeting and dealing with cranky ones is not the same as researching and writing legal memos, and being current on ACA changes (or the equivalent in other fields).
-
That is why I said partially in jest, and partially in true belief.
I had a career counselor who actually told me to use that approach when I was laid off. She told me to put that I was self employed and to actually try to keep up on things the best I could and use real world things to show that I can still manage tasks.
I realize this doesn't work for all fields.
-
So work to change the laws in your state rather than complaining here!
Not complaining, just answering the question that was posed to me. I don't have the motivation to attempt to change the laws here (Virginia). Might as well say, "Work to change the good ol' boy Southern culture to love gay marriage, gender equality, diversity, and hipster men wearing skinny jeans," because that's what it would take. We're talking about a very conservative and very long legal tradition, around since before there was a United States. The state is becoming more "purple" in voting due to the high (and more liberal) population in the Washington DC suburbs, but the remaining 99% of the state, area-wise, is very conservative, with a very conservative legislature, courts, and judges. Our state legislature last year was the first, and highly proud, to require women to undergo "transvaginal ultrasounds" and view the images before having an abortion, no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy. Good luck changing divorce laws to be more egalitarian and gender neutral here!
This state is also one of the last holdouts (I think there are about 5 left) not to have shared child custody as the default. That's the real divorce law crime that leads to all kinds of horrible outcomes, and gives SAHPs a ridiculous advantage that can be used as a potent weapon, including with alimony (i.e., if you want to see kids, pay up). And regardless of the laws, many judges in this state see women and mothers as the only "proper" parents, delicate flowers that need extra care and coddling, so says my female attorney in practice for 30+ years.
-
^It sounds like Virginia needs more female judges. All of the family court judges in my county are female, and with that change came the default of the woman gets custody to the default of "well of course she can work and of course he wants 50% custody!" According to my (older male) divorce lawyer, for years it was the older male judges here who were the enemy of the men who wanted an even division of assets and joint custody arrangement. Do you get to elect your judges?
-
The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage. This seems like a good idea.
*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*
"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"
"Yes! Oh yes!"
*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*
SNORT!
-
@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate? This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.
If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner? Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate? Thanks for sharing!
My fiance and I have been together 7 years now and will be getting a prenup before we get married this summer. We've always kept our finances separate and didn't want that to change when we get married. I'm not sure who will benefit the most in the long run (she has more inheritance, my future earnings are likely higher) but the main thing is the peace of mind it brings now. She's not a crazy spender (saves roughly 25%) but she does have certain spending habits that would really bug me if it was "our" money she was spending rather than "her" money. Right now I can maybe poke her a bit about it and help her question if she REALLY needs it or whatever, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me much so I don't care. Having it separate has reduced the potential for conflict about money significantly.
As for how we got there... when we started dating we both had our own income stream and always kept it separate. When we started talking about getting married, we discussed how we wanted to do finances going forward and we both liked the fact they were separate and wanted to keep it that way. The house will be 50/50 but food, utilities, etc are calculated and split and the person who paid less that month transfers money to the other person to make up the difference. There was a period I was going to school and had insufficient income and she loaned me a bit of money to help me through the last bit rather than taking out a school loan and we tracked that as a 0% loan that I paid off once I finished.
It might sound a bit cold but I think it has been a great way to remove a potential stressor from the relationship. We ARE in it together so if something did happen such that one person couldn't work or something we'd revisit this approach. But until something like that happens, we are two working adults that are happy to avoid the potential stress/arguments/whatever that can result from merging finances.
@ Vilgan: Thanks for sharing your story. Wondering do you ever hear from others how keeping your finances separate shows that you do not care about each other? Or that you do not trust each other completely? Curious to how you and anyone else willing to share has address these concerns when asked by family or close friends.
@ All: If you previously wanted to merge finances but later decided against it, do you mind sharing why? Would love to hear more about your mindset and how the decision to go either way affected your relationship too. Thanks!
Close family members are aware of our plan and they all seem to think it makes sense. We don't fight about other things, so why risk potential fights about money? There might one that thinks it is a bit strange and just keep it to themselves, but I haven't noticed a negative reaction from anyone on the idea. I think it helps that at this point we've been together a long time and they all know each other and mostly like each other. I think it is easier to make judgments about not being all in or not trusting each other etc when you don't know the people involved.
-
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact. Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.
-
^That's brilliant. I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was). Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.
-
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact. Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.
I wouldn't have any ceremony called a "wedding" if it weren't actually made legal because I think it may piss people off, even though I think that part of it is none of their business. Did anyone get pissed?
^That's brilliant. I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was). Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.
As a patient at a hospital, don't you have to tell them your marital status or put it on a form. Would it be illegal to say you're married if you are not legally? I don't know the answer, just something to think about.
My lady and I sometimes refer to each other as husband and wife because it makes the most sense in certain situations. So far my grandpa is the only one to point out it's legally not true; I just smile and say OK.
-
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact. Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.
I wouldn't have any ceremony called a "wedding" if it weren't actually made legal because I think it may piss people off, even though I think that part of it is none of their business. Did anyone get pissed?
We were a bit peeved ourselves actually. The sarcasm didn't come across well over the internet. Apparently they held off on filing paperwork so "SIL" could take the mortgage deduction on their jointly owned house. BIL makes too much to qualify. (MIL was very unhappy at tax breaks expiring for them a bit ago as they were over $250k apparently, but we didn't feel too sorry for them. Somehow we've got to pay for running the country and the person earning minimum wage can't afford to shoulder it.) It may be mustachian not to get married, and that's totally fine, but we weren't particularly a fan of learning we spent a lot of time, effort, and money attending what later turned out to be a fake wedding. (And we're not particularly religious, I suspect religious people would feel even more "taken in" and that it was a mockery.) Wish they had at least been upfront about it.
-
...It may be mustachian not to get married, and that's totally fine, but we weren't particularly a fan of learning we spent a lot of time, effort, and money attending what later turned out to be a fake wedding. (And we're not particularly religious, I suspect religious people would feel even more "taken in" and that it was a mockery.) Wish they had at least been upfront about it.
This issue comes up regularly on the website "Wedding Bee." But it usually is the opposite scenario: the couple got married earlier due to military/insurance/immigration reasons, and the "wedding" is actually a vow renewal ceremony taking place after the true marriage date.
A fair number of posters say they would feel duped by attending as a guest anything that is less than what it is represented to be.
"
I would be somewhat annoyed to attend a "wedding" where the couple did not get married for tax purposes. It is crass. Just call it a "commitment ceremony" and be truthful and done with it.
-
^That's brilliant. I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was). Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.
Heh heh- in our almost 20 years of marriage, my husband and I have had to produce our marriage certificate exactly twice- the first time to get his green card (which is perfectly understandable) and the second time so I could get on his dental plan!
-
Per the "fake" weddings...I can totally get why a couple that needed a marriage certificate might want to have the party and even some kind of religious ceremony later (to share with family who couldn't be there, Grandma gets to see you in a wedding gown, etc.) I wouldn't mind going to one of those at all as long as I knew what was going on. Or even a couple who isn't getting legally married wanting to have some kind of dedication ceremony/party for friends and family. But yes, a wedding where the couple claims to be married but is not...that seems weird. I guess because it's hard to think of a higher purpose behind lying to everyone.
-
Yes, I've attended a ceremony where the couple was already married a year for immigration reasons. It didn't phase me, as they were honest about it. The reverse situation bothered us though. My MIL reminded us to send an anniversary card at the end of the month and my husband half-joked if we could put quotes around the: Happy "Anniversary" wishes.
-
I have a prenup. When I met my husband, I was still in college and he had a start up that was just starting to do well. Because ours was an international romance, we knew that we had to make a decision early on about whether we wanted to give it a go, get married and have one of us emigrate. We chose to get married. I left Canada for the USA, dropping out of school and leaving family, stuff, scholarships in my dust.
A prenup seemed like a reasonable and intelligent decision. It had nothing to do with being "all in" - just the realization that life isn't a fairy tale. The worst case scenario in my case was that I was stuck in a foreign country with no money, no options, no job and no way to get back home or recover the lost time/money.
The worst case scenario for him was that I would own half his business and claim alimony.
Our prenup protected his premarital assets and also gave me a lump sum settlement to return home.
In the first few years of marriage, we had a perfect exit route. If either one of us was unhappy with our choice, we could leave and take an eraser to the whole thing. But we didn't. Why? Because we took our marriage seriously. We both wanted to be there 100%.
I don't really understand the mentality that being "all in" means you create a marriage that is a trap for your finances. Why does there need to be some kind of financial punishment in place in order for a person to be 100% invested in the marriage? If the only thing keeping a person in the marriage is the idea that they will lose 50% of their assets, then that's not "all in."
These days, my husband has sold his business and comingled the funds. I make more than he does, but we both gave up alimony in the prenup. Circumstances changed - the prenup that was in his favor early on is now to his detriment. I've offered to amend it with a postnup, but he doesn't want to. So maybe you are right in a way - in his mind, when we signed the prenup, perhaps he wasn't "all in" - and now he is, and can't imagine needing a postnup.
This is a fascinating read, thanks for sharing Cpa Cat! Highly agree with you comment, "I don't really understand the mentality that being "all in" means you create a marriage that is a trap for your finances. Why does there need to be some kind of financial punishment in place in order for a person to be 100% invested in the marriage? If the only thing keeping a person in the marriage is the idea that they will lose 50% of their assets, then that's not "all in."! To me it seems to extreme and yet many of my married friends strongly feel that assets must be merged and cannot imagine a relationship with this.
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
-
...
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
This thread is pretty long and I may have already stated this somewhere upthread. but--
Yes, and no.
No--For one thing, when we got married eons ago DH had financial assets of $100,000 and I had around $15,000. If he had asked for a pre-nup I would have been 1) surpised (it's not his style) and then 2) agreeable. I think pre-nups are smart. I also respect the fact that DH and his parents loaned money back and forth for the family farm, his real estate acquisitions and etc and they had written documents each time. To me, that shows a business-like approach to money, not a lack of trust.
Yes--for me, me personally, throwing in my money with his, commingling it from the beginning, was a sort of jumping into the fire with both feet. It was a leap into a new life.
-
I'm for pre-nups. One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish. For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for. So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet." In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets. You can make it to protect the other person's assets. If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.
I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements. We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?" We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing"). But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was. As it happened, the marriage didn't survive. But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him. Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience. (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.) The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.
-
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
I don't think it's necessary to merge finances. The main reason my lady and I keep finances separate is because we have different spending habits. She likes being independent, and I like not worrying about her spending "our" money on lattes and clothes. People choose to accumulate and spend money at different rates. And to answer a potential question, I think a couple can have a wonderful relationship even if they have different spending and saving habits, as long as they are not too different. That's how it is for us.
If it makes couples feel closer to be "all in" with their money, I see nothing wrong with that. But I disagree if someone says it is a requirement for a healthy relationship or marriage.
-
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship. Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.
It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.
-
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship. Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.
It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.
From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."
My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.
-
I don't have a story. I knew when I was 16 I didn't want to get married. Now at 32, I am still glad I have decided not to get married. It is a lifestyle and financial choice.
-
From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."
This is awesome! I'm going to use this if you don't mind, in another financial forum I'm on there's a big debate going on about reasons to merge accounts, and I can't get people to see my POV.
My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.
My first marriage we had totally shared finances. It was 12 years of emotional and verbal abuse, culminating in many affairs (him) and a stay in a psych hospital (me).
My current marriage (10 years together and counting), we have never bothered to join finances. I've had the "you are more like flatmates than spouses" comment more than once online, but the difference emotionally between this marriage and the first is like chalk and cheese. We are absolutely partners in everything, and everything financial gets discussed first (except the little purchases). Makes a massive change from being repeatedly caught out at the grocery store checkout with an account with no money because my husband had decided to spend the $1000 in the account on jewellery for his latest girlfriend.
-
Interesting points on both sides. I got married at 27 but we had been together since 18. We pretty much started at 0. We have shared since day one as I think its important for us to be on the same page. If we aren't financial on the same page we shouldn't be together. I'm sure that if something is to happen and I find myself single I may rethink this.
-
I think marriage is largely what you make of it and what values you attribute to it. Some people think having separate accounts negates the whole point of joining lives. Okay.
Lots of couples find that separating certain things just makes life together better overall, but still consider themselves marriage partners. Using grant's eating analogy, would I be any less married to my wife if she suddenly became vegan or I became paleo, so we started preparing and eating "separate" meals? Do we have to eat the same things to be truly joined?
My (senior citizen) mom sleeps in another bedroom from her husband because he snores a lot, and she tosses and turns all night and gets up super early. Together they'd never get any sleep, but by being in separate bedrooms, they can each get a decent night's sleep. I don't think this makes them any less married, and I would not even think that for a younger couple who has separate bedrooms but still makes room for plenty of "adult time."
In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.
-
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
-
I think marriage is largely what you make of it and what values you attribute to it. Some people think having separate accounts negates the whole point of joining lives. Okay.
Lots of couples find that separating certain things just makes life together better overall, but still consider themselves marriage partners. Using grant's eating analogy, would I be any less married to my wife if she suddenly became vegan or I became paleo, so we started preparing and eating "separate" meals? Do we have to eat the same things to be truly joined?
My (senior citizen) mom sleeps in another bedroom from her husband because he snores a lot, and she tosses and turns all night and gets up super early. Together they'd never get any sleep, but by being in separate bedrooms, they can each get a decent night's sleep. I don't think this makes them any less married, and I would not even think that for a younger couple who has separate bedrooms but still makes room for plenty of "adult time."
In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.
This gets at an idea my father frequently shared with us growing up. He said a marriage is between two people, and you can't know from the outside what is really going on or how the marriage is going, because ultimately it's between the two of them. (My parents have what I consider a strong marriage, and were/are very much against setting the institution up as a magical fairytale with true love->happily ever after). It works best for us to have joint accounts, but the fact that others come to different arrangements in their own marriages doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of commitment to me.
-
In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough about my views. I don't look at anybody else's relationship and say that - as you said, who am I? I look at MY relationship and say "this is how I feel about the way my relationship should be", and nothing more.
-
We share finances, and if we get divorced in the next 7 or 8 years, I'll take a financial hit from where I started. And if we divorce w/in the first 12 to 15 years, I probably would have made out better by myself. We're getting married in 3 weeks (which will make it much easier w/ just a joint account to work out of), but we've merged finances since living together the end of last year. He has student loans equal to the amount I had in my bank account (which was 60% of my net worth), but some of that money has been used to set up house, buy a car, and wedding/honeymoon. We will pay off the final 1/3 of his student loans over the next 2 years or so, working together on our budget. The other 40% of my NW is in investments for retirement and a shorter term goal. Together, our NW is less than half of what mine was alone. He has 2/3 the income I do, the loan payments, and is a bit spendier than me. But he is willing to be a team on making our budget and though I won't retire early (commercial family farm - tough to leave early) I'm getting him on board w/ savings. If our finances were separate, he would have no spending money, or very little, and I would have tons to save for retirement and go on trips, and I guess pay for all of our activities/dates? It's just an unequal situation, and sharing finances only makes sense. But divorce in the nearish future would not help me financially, though he would do well in comparison.
-
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
If it was a major financial setback because of something out of his/her control like a job loss or medical expenses - the yes, I'd be there with my cash willing to help as much as possible. However if it was just because he HAD to have that Sports car or 200 inch plasma TV - then no. And if he already had those things and then had a financial disaster and I was going to help bail him out, he's have to sell those things asap.
-
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
If it was a major financial setback because of something out of his/her control like a job loss or medical expenses - the yes, I'd be there with my cash willing to help as much as possible. However if it was just because he HAD to have that Sports car or 200 inch plasma TV - then no. And if he already had those things and then had a financial disaster and I was going to help bail him out, he's have to sell those things asap.
Same here. I cover most of our living expenses right now because she is still in school.
From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."
This is awesome! I'm going to use this if you don't mind, in another financial forum I'm on there's a big debate going on about reasons to merge accounts, and I can't get people to see my POV.
Don't mind at all :)
-
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
This happened to me. He was off work for 6 months after a medical emergency, and not receiving any income. I paid for everything and gave him a "no questions asked" allowance.
Next?
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.
They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse. E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars. I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.) I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.
They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse. E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars. I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.) I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.
I worked pro bono offering advice to those with no assets, so this question never came up :) I also don't know the laws in your state. That said, yes, a conservative careful approach might be 1) keep any records that show an intention by both parties to retire early when X amount was achieved (maybe it'd help), and 2) time your retirement carefully.
-
wtf... so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that? Is it really that simple?
Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.
They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse. E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars. I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.) I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."
The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job. They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning. As with anything, it's an imperfect system. If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.
So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.
Oh course this is all subject to the laws of the state and when whims of the judge, but it really comes down to income going forward from the divorce. If there were sufficient assets to guarantee both parties an ample income I doubt that alimony would be required (celebrities and the uber-wealthy being an exception).
The purpose of alimony is for when the income (or the potential income) of one spouse is far below the other spouse, alimony is intended to balance out this disparity and typically will only be considered for long term marriages (15+ years).
And my advice to anyone who is considering divorce, if you are the higher earning spouse the longer you wait the more you will pay, if you are the lower earning spouse the longer you delay the more you stand to collect. I am all in favor of happy relationships, and if your marriage can be salvaged by all means give it a go, but if all the signals point to a divorce best to rip the band-aid off as quickly as possible and get the pain behind you.
-
...So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.
I know 2 instances fairly close to me where the man stopped working in his 50's when the pension kicked in and the wives went on working. Both men--mustachean. One of the wives--big spender, the other wife--pretty frugal.
And in both cases they ended up divorced just 3 years after the men retired. I would imagine that adjusted the men's 'stache.
-
Oh course this is all subject to the laws of the state and when whims of the judge, but it really comes down to income going forward from the divorce. If there were sufficient assets to guarantee both parties an ample income I doubt that alimony would be required (celebrities and the uber-wealthy being an exception).
The purpose of alimony is for when the income (or the potential income) of one spouse is far below the other spouse, alimony is intended to balance out this disparity and typically will only be considered for long term marriages (15+ years).
You're right that it very much depends on the jurisdiction in question, but many (or even most) jurisdictions will award alimony on a strict formula basis, and it does not require a large disparity in income or a long marriage. Also, it is much les dependent on income going forward than income in the past or at the time of the divorce. It's simply plug in the numbers, and the formula spits out what the higher paying spouse owes. Deviating from those guidelines is rare and often requires exceptional circumstances.
Usually there will be guidelines dictating how long alimony will last. For example, in my state, it's 1/2 the length of the marriage for marriages under 20 years, and for life after that. But you most certainly don't have to be wealthy or a celebrity or in a long marriage or have a large pay disparity to pay alimony; far from it! This is one reason I'm vocal on this board about prenups, because many people likely don't recognize just how likely they may be to pay alimony and that it can be onerous, even lasting for life, decades after the demise of the marriage.
-
I'm sure I stated it eons and pages ago in this thread, but remember that you do not get to voluntarily reduce your income (e.g., retire early) and have your alimony or child support obligations reduced. So, for example, if you earn $100k at the time of divorce, and you are paying $2000/month in alimony or child support based on that, you will continue to pay that amount when you retire, even though you've reduced your earnings to $0 (although child support can be eliminated once they reach the age of majority). If you're paying alimony for life, well then -- you're paying for life, so factor that into your retirement budget!
-
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"? And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in? Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner. What do you think? Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship. Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.
It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.
From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."
My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.
@ bikebum: Thanks for sharing some excellent points! Since you do not feel having separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship or indicates a lack of trust, do you mind sharing how a bit about your experience with your partner? I find it interesting and helpful to read how couples raise, communicate and compromise on this extremely sensitive topic (pre-nups and keeping separate finances). Thank you!
-
I'm for pre-nups. One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish. For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for. So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet." In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets. You can make it to protect the other person's assets. If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.
I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements. We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?" We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing"). But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was. As it happened, the marriage didn't survive. But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him. Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience. (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.) The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.
Wow! I appreciate your insights! I didn't consider a pre-nup as something that can be selfless and not selfish. Good distinction. May I ask, what is your experience with friends or loved ones who have partners who were not willing to sign a pre-nup? I am very curious how other couples communicated their concerns and how they reached a compromise. Thanks again. I also agree with you how people who fight like cats and dogs over a pre-nup may have other underlining concerns like distrust, etc.
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else. And it's not like these people knew that the relationship would go bad when they first married. Seems you just can't know what your spouse is planning behind your back.
Regarding prenups, I've heard that even these aren't 100% reliable. With a 50% divorce rate, marriage seems very risky, especially for a Mustachian who might marry with a large sum on hand. Having to work another 5-10 years after divorce as a prior early retiree sounds horrible.
-
I'm for pre-nups. One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish. For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for. So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet." In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets. You can make it to protect the other person's assets. If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.
I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements. We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?" We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing"). But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was. As it happened, the marriage didn't survive. But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him. Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience. (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.) The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.
Wow! I appreciate your insights! I didn't consider a pre-nup as something that can be selfless and not selfish. Good distinction. May I ask, what is your experience with friends or loved ones who have partners who were not willing to sign a pre-nup? I am very curious how other couples communicated their concerns and how they reached a compromise. Thanks again. I also agree with you how people who fight like cats and dogs over a pre-nup may have other underlining concerns like distrust, etc.
This is a very interesting point. I know of a friend of a friend that had a difficult prenup discussion (the one with the business assets offered a quite unreasonable prenup only 2-3 weeks before the wedding). The one w/o the assets (but who had been supporting both of them...) signed, but they ended up getting a divorce w/in a year. Obviously there can be red flags the other direction but most often people characterize it as the unwillingness to sign of the one w/o the assets as the issue, so this is a story to buck that trend.
-
I cried a little and couldn't read through all the posts here. I don't think anyone ever fully recovers from a divorce where children are involved. I think it effects generations.
I hope we can all deal with the pain in the most constructive manner possible.
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.
Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)?
I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name). And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.
My DH does not work. If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all. And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me). We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.
Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)?
I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name). And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.
My DH does not work. If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all. And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me). We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).
Compared to a 50% chance of losing half my life savings? Certainly. And it's an opportunity cost, not a loss.
I fully agree marriage should be much more than just financial considerations, but it's really hard to ignore the fact that if the marriage does go sour (and there are plenty of chances it will), you would lose half of your 'stache. Even prenups can be voided (spouse can claim they were signed under duress, or without full understanding of the terms).
I think marriage is great. But it's just too risky these days, particularly for people with a large amount of assets. The problem is, you just can't know who is going to divorce you. And if it happens, no one know what the courts will decide.
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.
Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)?
I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name). And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.
My DH does not work. If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all. And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me). We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).
Compared to a 50% chance of losing half my life savings? Certainly. And it's an opportunity cost, not a loss.
I fully agree marriage should be much more than just financial considerations, but it's really hard to ignore the fact that if the marriage does go sour (and there are plenty of chances it will), you would lose half of your 'stache. Even prenups can be voided (spouse can claim they were signed under duress, or without full understanding of the terms).
I think marriage is great. But it's just too risky these days, particularly for people with a large amount of assets. The problem is, you just can't know who is going to divorce you. And if it happens, no one know what the courts will decide.
Well, there are laws that limit what courts can decide. And like I said, I am unaware of anywhere where you are legally entitled to 1/2 of anything saved *before* the marriage. So, we're not talking about any loss of current assents, but the fear of loss of future savings, or weighing the opportunity costs of building savings through marriage (with the risk of divorce) vs building savings individually.
IME there is a lot of fear-mongering regarding loss of assets through divorce (exhibit A: see this long ass thread). And also IME, much of this comes from loss-aversion. You often hear stories of "OMG-I had to give my ex half of my million in savings" vs "OMG-through our joint efforts my wife and I were able to save a million dollars vs just the $500,000 I'd have on my own."
Also, we're Mustachian. We can always build our savings back up if somehow we do wind up worse off after a divorce than if we had never married.
-
This may sound very negative but when my husband and I got together, I thought to myself how would he behave during a divorce?
I had the opportunity to observe his legal dealings with his ex-wife which did not go smoothly to say the least. But he always behaved in a reasonable and civilized manner. Always. Something to look for.
-
Hi everyone,
I'm still dating but this is a topic I'm very interested in because I know how big a setback divorce would be for my goals.
On_a_slow_boat and Thespoof: How did you bring up the topic of keeping finances separate with your significant other? Were they offended at first and you had to convince them, or did they get on board right away? I know every situation will be different, I'm just curious to hear how your's went. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I completely understand.
JHC I'm just going to go out on a limb and reply without reading what everyone else had to say. My wife and I kept our finances separate for five years. We were wasting money like crazy because we didn't support each other and use money to bolster each others actions. Together we make an efficient machine. The cost is that we had to air every bit of hidden spending and dirty laundry to work together. If you're uncomfortable about sharing spending and merging assets there's a problem. Spouse means equal in everything. If you have problems with equal in everything than don't have spouse. Also with this being a divorce thread I'm just going to say being equal in everything is scary, frustrating ......really freaking scary and extremely rewarding in some cases.
If someones actions will directly change what options you have in life be really really honest about how that makes you feel and what actions you absolutely will take in response.
-
Emilyngh says:
"IME there is a lot of fear-mongering regarding loss of assets through divorce (exhibit A: see this long ass thread). And also IME, much of this comes from loss-aversion. You often hear stories of "OMG-I had to give my ex half of my million in savings" vs "OMG-through our joint efforts my wife and I were able to save a million dollars vs just the $500,000 I'd have on my own.""
Thank you, Emilyngh, for you sane contribution!
-
Hi everyone,
I'm still dating but this is a topic I'm very interested in because I know how big a setback divorce would be for my goals.
On_a_slow_boat and Thespoof: How did you bring up the topic of keeping finances separate with your significant other? Were they offended at first and you had to convince them, or did they get on board right away? I know every situation will be different, I'm just curious to hear how your's went. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I completely understand.
My wife and I kept our finances separate for five years. We were wasting money like crazy because we didn't support each other and use money to bolster each others actions. Together we make an efficient machine.
I found this interesting because my hubby (now ex) and I always had separate finances during our 20 years together (17 married) and pretty much spent/saved the exact same amount seperately as we would have together. We had the whole "yours, mine, ours" savings and investments and a pre-determined amount went into each - including bill paying. I never felt either of us wasted any money even if much of it was kept separate. When we divorced neither of us came away financially ruined - as a matter of fact we each were nearly FI separately based on our own savings and investments. So I don't think it's so much HOW you hold money, I think it's more how one person spends compared to another. Since DH and I were basically the same (savers) it was a wash.
For JHC: I don't really remember either of us discussing how we'd hold our finances (we were both broke and very young when we married) so it just sort of happened. As we got older and had more money coming in, we both continued to save the same way as before. If we jointly decided to buy something big that we'd both be sharing, then we'd each agree to buy the thing, and each would contribute 50% (we worked in the same profession and made the same amount of money).
-
Shortly after we met, wife and I both started dumping all the money we could save into her bank account for a down payment on a house. (My name wasn't even on the account!) I bet no one here has done that!
Four years later we married and moved into our home at 20 (her) and 22 years old. We both worked full time, all income has always gone into the same pot. All large expenses were agreed upon, small ones never questioned. We both were savers, but not quite to mustachian levels.
Today, 31 years later, if wife and I divorce, I'm not "losing" 50% of my stach. I'm keeping my half and she's keeping hers. We would both be fine, $$$ wise. If anything, we saved and acquired MORE together, because two can live cheaper (per person) than one.
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.
Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)?
I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name). And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.
Doubling your life savings only works if you marry with comparable incomes. How does getting married and maybe divorced double your savings if you make $150K/year and marry someone making $60K/year (with not much room for growth)? Average that out and the $150K/year person is now down to $105K/year because in a divorce assets would be split 50/50.
Also, we're Mustachian. We can always build our savings back up if somehow we do wind up worse off after a divorce than if we had never married.
This is not necessarily true. At some point you may be too old to work or may not have many working years left.
-
Am
-
After following this thread a long time, and reading all those fear about "probability of divorce" i think it should be pointed out that you have very much influence of the outcome of your marriage. This is nothing that "just accidentally happens" like a rock falling on your head. In my opinion, of course there is the chance of divorce or a malicious/bad partner divorcing you, but in "normal" marriages i think how well both care about the marriage by far outweights this "random chance". 50% divorce rate should no be read as in "50% i cant do anything against".
Threat your partner well and continuously work on your relationship and you are set for a "4%-SWR"-like high probability of success. In such a scenario, the highly probable realizing benefits of marriage vastly outdo the possible negative consequences in case of a black swan; at least in my book.
-
Shortly after we met, wife and I both started dumping all the money we could save into her bank account for a down payment on a house. (My name wasn't even on the account!) I bet no one here has done that!
You lose that bet! Oh, wait, it was my husband's account not my wife's (because I don't have a wife). Does that mean you still win?
-
This is nothing that "just accidentally happens" like a rock falling on your head.
True, but you don't control how your spouse changes. Or maybe even how you change. You can control how you react to the changes, but the changes are not something you can control or even predict.
-
I learned the hard way that it may be better to marry some who also has good income, 401k, and only house debt.
In a prior lifetime, I got to see house, bank, and 401k increases get shared in divorce when I was the one funding them.
My current spouse has more in her 401k than I do, and she is 6 years younger, although she makes less, only wanting to work 4 days per week.
-
This is nothing that "just accidentally happens" like a rock falling on your head.
True, but you don't control how your spouse changes. Or maybe even how you change. You can control how you react to the changes, but the changes are not something you can control or even predict.
Put this way you are correct. Nonetheless i think if you loose sight of your marriage and dont stay in touch closely (enough), it might look like a change beyond control. If you talk regularly and align your interests and long term goals, i think, the probability that you can detect unfortunate changes and also be able to control them without escalation beyond the stage that the only possible remaining solution is divorce.
Let me illustrate this a little better (sorry for my probably bad english): Suppose you ride in a car. Of course you could not control that there is no rock behind the next curve. But you can control the speed of your car and slow down, enabling you to avoid the stone i case should there be one.
E.g. control your relationship and slow down in time, do not let things escalate.
-
Doubling your life savings only works if you marry with comparable incomes. How does getting married and maybe divorced double your savings if you make $150K/year and marry someone making $60K/year (with not much room for growth)? Average that out and the $150K/year person is now down to $105K/year because in a divorce assets would be split 50/50.
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
-
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.
Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)?
I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name). And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.
Doubling your life savings only works if you marry with comparable incomes. How does getting married and maybe divorced double your savings if you make $150K/year and marry someone making $60K/year (with not much room for growth)? Average that out and the $150K/year person is now down to $105K/year because in a divorce assets would be split 50/50.
Often (although not always) in these scenarios, the person earning less is contributing in other ways that save the family money - from childcare, to domestic responsibilities.
For example, after a $20K raise this year, my husband now earns $140K to my $82K. So he's screwed if we divorce? Not really. First, my $82K comes with generous pension (including health care), so it's worth "more" than it appears. Second, every single night he is working late for his job, I'm the one cooking the meal, which saves us money. (Actually regardless of his work schedule, I'm cooking every single night we don't go out, and sometimes he reluctantly helps because he hates doing chores so avoid outsourcing to restaurants, cleaning people and peapod, I do it.) While he plays Heathstone obsessively (NOT working and 100% capable of helping, I'd like to note), I'm the one saving us money shopping for food, clothing, appliances furniture, because I am the one researching best value (quality+price), and hunting down deals, sales and coupons. While he plays Heathstone, I'm the one spending the time planning vacations, activities, time with friends, etc. Not only do I save us a ton of money, contributing to our stash, I save him a lot of stress, which is priceless and and can't be quantified. A marriage is more than just the sum of the money each brings in. Failure to understand that probably accounts for a substantial portion of the 50% of divorces.
(btw, in our situation, we are fortunate in that we've both been the substantially higher earner at times. When we met, my annual salary was $175K to his ~$65k-$80k. We know we are not with each other just for the money. Damn, it's hard enough finding a compatible partner to enjoy spending your life together without requiring that in addition to being funny/cute/smart/etc they make - and always continue to make - exactly equal to you.)
Also, assets being split 50/50 is a generalization. This is a matter of state law and state law varies. In my state, they look at all of the factors including length of marriage, health, age, occupation, income, sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, opportunities to aquire future assets or income, contribution of parties in the acquisition, preservation and appreciation of their estate, contribution as homemakers, needs of couple and children…. Quote from a law firm website: “It is often possible to argue successfully for the court to exclude certain assets and/or liabilities. Items commonly excluded include assets acquired prior to marriage, gifted or inherited assets, and liabilities incurred for luxury items or educational expenses benefiting a single spouse.”
Ultimately my advice to people is that if you prioritize your finances over a partnership of equals, then absolutely, marriage is probably not for you. If you want to spend your life with someone, compromises – from dinner choice tonight to color of the walls to type of car to how to build a stash – are in order.
-
I can't say many of the replies in here are surprising, but outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days? It shouldn't come as a shock to realize that Western marriage and birth rates have been declining for decades and look to continue to do so, especially with some of the horror stories read in here and the ludicrous face that disproportionate child support and alimony are still awarded.
There are many ways to obtain all of the benefits of marriage in America without having most of the risk (there is no common-law marriage in the US), so if I choose to have a family one day I will probably go that route.
Some couples live like they are married but don't actually make it legal. That's what my lady and I are doing. We are getting rings as a sign of commitment to each other.
As far as I can tell, the only downside to not making it legal (assuming you aren't interested) is if one wants to get on a health care plan from the other's work. And some people may judge you. For other things you can fill out easy forms that give power of attorney for health care and financial stuff.
Anyone considering this should check to see if their state recognizes common law marriage; mine doesn't.
I don't think there is anything wrong with legal marriage; it's just not for everyone :)
Smart man. This right here is exactly what I am talking about and a big reason why marriage rates are slowing. The funny thing is that I actually believe in marriage and the fundamentals behind the union, but a certain faction of this country has completely disincentivized it. Only downside here is that you miss out on the tax breaks ;)
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
This is true if living apart, but there is basically no stigma anymore against living together, having children out of wedlock, or hell, if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
-
I can't say many of the replies in here are surprising, but outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?
I would respect your opinion more if it weren't sexist and you had said "outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for anyone to get married these days?"
There are many ways to obtain all of the benefits of marriage in America without having most of the risk (there is no common-law marriage in the US), so if I choose to have a family one day I will probably go that route.
Wrong. Several states have common law marriage.
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
This is true if living apart, but there is basically no stigma anymore against living together, having children out of wedlock, or hell, if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
-
I can't say many of the replies in here are surprising, but outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?
I would respect your opinion more if it weren't sexist and you had said "outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for anyone to get married these days?"
There are many ways to obtain all of the benefits of marriage in America without having most of the risk (there is no common-law marriage in the US), so if I choose to have a family one day I will probably go that route.
Wrong. Several states have common law marriage.
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
This is true if living apart, but there is basically no stigma anymore against living together, having children out of wedlock, or hell, if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
The fact that you would even label that first statement as sexist is laughable. In aggregate I think women do get more out of a marriage then men, and they prevail at a much high rate in the courts when it comes to divorce and custody, so please continue with the ad hominems.
You're correct about common law, my mistake, but it is only essentially around in 7 states and my guess is that is willbe done away with within a generation or two.
As for your last statement, out of wedlock births are closing in on 50% of all births, so there is currently a large minority of the population who would disagree with you. I also simply said there was no stigma against it and it can be done without assuming the risks of marriage. Check your reading comprehension.
Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days? Marriage rates are declining, I'm not making it up, and I think the biggest reason is bc young men are asking themselves this question. I'd love to hear a female opinion regarding this.
-
I can't say many of the replies in here are surprising, but outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?
I would respect your opinion more if it weren't sexist and you had said "outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for anyone to get married these days?"
There are many ways to obtain all of the benefits of marriage in America without having most of the risk (there is no common-law marriage in the US), so if I choose to have a family one day I will probably go that route.
Wrong. Several states have common law marriage.
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
This is true if living apart, but there is basically no stigma anymore against living together, having children out of wedlock, or hell, if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
The fact that you would even label that first statement as sexist is laughable. In aggregate I think women do get more out of a marriage then men, and they prevail at a much high rate in the courts when it comes to divorce and custody, so please continue with the ad hominems.
You're correct about common law, my mistake, but it is only essentially around in 7 states and my guess is that is willbe done away with within a generation or two.
As for your last statement, out of wedlock births are closing in on 50% of all births, so there is currently a large minority of the population who would disagree with you. I also simply said there was no stigma against it and it can be done without assuming the risks of marriage. Check your reading comprehension.
Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days? Marriage rates are declining, I'm not making it up, and I think the biggest reason is bc young men are asking themselves this question. I'd love to hear a female opinion regarding this.
I guess the only disincentive is the quality of women this man may attract, given that he is saying from the outset he is not willing to show traditional, cultural, or legal commitment to the relationship. Originally when I was with my now husband, the first 5 years we lived together in a committed relationship and I was not interested in marriage, because my parents divorced and I didn't want to go down the same route (I know, superstitious). However when I was getting of age to have children, no way I would stay with a guy who wasn't willing to be married, it's the least of many signs one can show the person is willing, ready and able to share a life with someone. I would not intend on being a single mom or my (hypothetical kids at that point) having a non-committed father.
As far as women getting more out of marriage, statistics point otherwise. Married men are healthier and live longer than unmarried men (the relationship is not as strong in married women for some reason). http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health
Basically marriage (and also a committed relationship) has many positive benefits for both partners, particularly for men, as long as it is a happy marriage.
-
A marriage is more than just the sum of the money each brings in. Failure to understand that probably accounts for a substantial portion of the 50% of divorces.
Ultimately my advice to people is that if you prioritize your finances over a partnership of equals, then absolutely, marriage is probably not for you. If you want to spend your life with someone, compromises – from dinner choice tonight to color of the walls to type of car to how to build a stash – are in order.
Well said.
-
Here's a female opinion.
-No I am not going to INTENTIONALLY procreate with you if you won't marry me because we might get divorced andyou think if we do I will take too much of your money.
-I suspect that the vast majority of those out of wedlock births are not planned.
-Apparently you are hot shit if you can attract the ladies like that, but I don't think most dudes find it so easy.
-
But yeah. On my cynical days, if I was in the situation where I got divorced and my kids were raised, while I may be interested in companionship and living with someone, I wouldn't be in a hurry to get re-married. I am financially self-sufficient and would prefer to financially help my children than a hypothetical new spouse (I am the breadwinner in our family), and health statistics show on average women don't get the same health benefits as men do from being married. Like anyone, I would have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks to have it make sense.
-
Thanks for the reply. I do believe that a good marriage does have its benefits, but who knows what you'll get.
I've read that link before, and all I can really say is "meh". Since the divorce rate is around 45% for first marriages, and I'd venture to guess that a third to half of all in tact marriages are not that happy due to various reasons,that still leaves a lot of room for a marriage to be more hurtful than beneficial for a man.
-
But yeah. On my cynical days, if I was in the situation where I got divorced and my kids were raised, while I may be interested in companionship and living with someone, I wouldn't be in a hurry to get re-married. I am financially self-sufficient and would prefer to financially help my children than a hypothetical new spouse (I am the breadwinner in our family), and health statistics show on average women don't get the same health benefits as men do from being married. Like anyone, I would have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks to have it make sense.
Ditto for me (without the cynical bit :-)!). I got divorced after a 17 year marriage (20 together, no kids, both equal incomes and finances, happy marriage, happy divorce) at around age 40 and had ABSOLUTELY NO interest in getting married again. It has been, surprisingly, a bit of a problem as most of the men I have dated really want to be married.
-
Yeah I think being with someone can amplify things in either direction. A lot of long standing couples, by working together have done outstanding, in both raising children, having a satisfying life, and financially accruing wealth, being on the same page, and so much more than either person doing it solo.
At the same time a bad relationship is extra destructive (emotionally, financially, etc). Being solo, the lows are not so low, but the highs are not so high either. Some people are so emotionally burned from a previous bad relationship, that yeah maybe that person shouldn't enter in a relationship because they have so many negative preconcieved attitudes or trust issues, its less likely to be successful.
-
Yeah I think being with someone can amplify things in either direction. A lot of long standing couples, by working together have done outstanding, in both raising children, having a satisfying life, and financially accruing wealth, being on the same page, and so much more than either person doing it solo.
At the same time a bad relationship is extra destructive (emotionally, financially, etc). Being solo, the lows are not so low, but the highs are not so high either. Some people are so emotionally burned from a previous bad relationship, that yeah maybe that person shouldn't enter in a relationship because they have so many negative preconcieved notions about what a relationship involves or is, its less likely to be successful.
A lot of it, for me at least, is that I was able to ER not to long after I divorced and seem to be on a different page financially as well as lifestyle-wise then most guys I meet. So even if the relationship itself was great (and they were) and there was no emotional baggage (there wasn't) they just wanted different things in life then I did. They didn't plan on retiring for 2 or 3 decades and were looking for a person who wanted to be in that settled life with them, doing the 9 to 5 or whatever. So sometimes it's not the actual quality of the relationship, it's just you want different lifestyles. Remaining single allows me the freedoms I really want in life and marriage (or even a live-in relationship) would require too many compromises. My hope is that I meet someone on the same page as me, who wants the same things, but so far that hasn't happened. No biggie though.
-
It sounds like you are in a good place, either way! I like being married (and the person I married) it definitely improves my quality of life and while we don't agree on all things the good outweighs the bad. I am better at the financials while he is better at self-sufficiency (fixing things, cooking, living simply, spending time doing things versus spending money). We got together pretty young and probably influenced each other to some extent.
-
I have to agree with a lot of jka468's statements.
Marriage is just looking like a worse and worse deal these days. That's why my generation (Millennials) has the lowest marriage rate ever and an estimated 25% of Millennials will never get married (http://time.com/3422624/report-millennials-marriage/).
Personally, I think marriage is a great thing, particularly for raising kids. But I just can't see myself getting married in the US. The divorce rate is too high (the entire culture seems to encourage petty divorce!) and the courts seem to not be favorable, particularly to men. I'm definitely up for marriage in another country if the situation is better, but I just can't see marriage in the US happening for me.
-
"Common law unions, also known as de facto unions, are a definite trend in Quebec, where nearly 38% of couples have chosen to live in this type of partnership, compared to 11.11% for the rest of Canada. They number over 1,400,000 people." (From the Quebec Notary Association).
Talking with women in Quebec, very often it is they, not the men, who want the common-law relationship. They have seen the bad marriages, the bad divorces, and they do not want to be caught.
-
Marriage makes sense for having kids, of course, but also for couples who focus on the career of just one of them. A marriage between two CEOs would be extremely challenging, and there are many careers that require high levels of dedication and ability to relocate if you want to progress past a certain point. If your career is a high priority for you, but you also desire companionship that won't get in the way of your work, it makes sense to be with someone who doesn't have a career, or has a "token" career. Typically, of course, this would be a working man and his stay-at-home wife, but it certainly doesn't have to be. For such a couple where one has sacrificed their own career opportunities to allow the other's to flourish unhindered, formal legal marriage makes sense to protect the non-working partner.
-
Interesting thread!
I married young (and divorced only a little bit older). I put her through University, shared my bank accounts with her and she blew all the money I (and my parents) had saved in about a year. But not before I found out she also made debts with "the shady sort of people". Divorce went quick as my lawyer convinced her we could press charges against her but wouldn't if she agreed to not fight the divorce. Took me 2 years of living from debt to debt to come out of that one. Nearly burned out as well...
While I did not want to get married again I did, nearly a year ago... Not because my wife and I really, really loved the notion of getting married, but because it was easier for our future plans. We didn't want to stay in Europe and it takes a lot less proof to have immigration officials believe you are in a committed relationship if you're married (even if you have been in a relationship for 4 years, moved around 3 different countries compared to 4 months of being married :?).
Most of the people I know got married, not out of some romantic notion, but for the tax reasons (however small!). And even then, you can sign a "relationship document" which is basically the same as getting married, only you're not married (hooray Europe!).
If anyone wants to know, I married with a prenup, as my wife was very concerned about her own money (even though I earn more and have more earning potential). God I love Dutch women!
-
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
My sentiment exactly. Having children is also very risky from a woman's perspective. Unlike for men, women take not only the financial risks by having kids, they also take health risks.
So if a man doesn't want a commitment to get married because it's too risky financially, then good luck finding quality female to have kids with.
-
Thanks for the reply. I do believe that a good marriage does have its benefits, but who knows what you'll get.
I've read that link before, and all I can really say is "meh". Since the divorce rate is around 45% for first marriages, and I'd venture to guess that a third to half of all in tact marriages are not that happy due to various reasons,that still leaves a lot of room for a marriage to be more hurtful than beneficial for a man.
For starters, divorce rates are way lower for college-educated people who get married a bit later.
And secondly, if you get over the risk of losing some money in a divorce, the marriage is actually much more beneficial for a man, provided he want a family. Because it's the female who ends up doing up to 80% of housework and looking after the kids, quite often on top of a full-time job (not always, of course, but more often then not).
-
Very interesting thread. I married my high school sweetheart at 19 (crazy), had four kids in ten years (crazy). We both got our college degrees but she stayed home raising the kids, which helped me have the flexibility to get a masters degree, pursue a leadership track and advance in my field. Kids are all gone now, I still earn 100% of the income, but it is a true partnership in every way. We have developed a decent stash but the stability and enjoyment of the relationship is worth far more. You have to work on it but a good marriage can help your stash in a lot of subtle ways that does show up just as income.
-
...Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
Agreed.
If I had children, I would want all of the legally binding conventions society offers to keep them close to me.
If this guy's theoretical girlfriend is as casual about their relationship as he seems to be, placing money before union, then I guess he won't mind if said airhead female takes off with his 2 children to live in a yurt in Tibet with her new man. No matter! Can always make more kids with another airhead.
But if children are not involved, I don't care, do whatever, commitment is not for everyone.
-
My divorce was a year ago..and even at that it was pre-mustachian. The whole process cost about $25,000, most of which went to her to get set up. The amazing part, which I'm truely grateful for, is that she didn't go for or even want my TSP or military pension. Her only financial request was that I continue to pay for college for my three step children.
So, while I'm up to my eyeballs in parent plus loans, I'm supremely grateful I married a strong, independant woman...and I'd do it again. Like the man said, "Never marry a woman you can't afford to divorce."
I'm also fully aware that this debt is what brought me to Get Rich Slowly and subsequently to MMM...and my own 10 year plan for FIRE....after my hair is no longer on fire!
-
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
My sentiment exactly. Having children is also very risky from a woman's perspective. Unlike for men, women take not only the financial risks by having kids, they also take health risks.
So if a man doesn't want a commitment to get married because it's too risky financially, then good luck finding quality female to have kids with.
So the millions of women in the Western world who have children and are together with the father, but not married, are not "quality"? That's some strong shaming language there.
Thanks for the reply. I do believe that a good marriage does have its benefits, but who knows what you'll get.
I've read that link before, and all I can really say is "meh". Since the divorce rate is around 45% for first marriages, and I'd venture to guess that a third to half of all in tact marriages are not that happy due to various reasons,that still leaves a lot of room for a marriage to be more hurtful than beneficial for a man.
For starters, divorce rates are way lower for college-educated people who get married a bit later.
And secondly, if you get over the risk of losing some money in a divorce, the marriage is actually much more beneficial for a man, provided he want a family. Because it's the female who ends up doing up to 80% of housework and looking after the kids, quite often on top of a full-time job (not always, of course, but more often then not).
And I would venture to guess that divorce rates will continue to creep downwards, especially for those who are educated, not because of some magical marriage epiphany, but because the overall marriage rate will continue to decline and there will be a selection bias going on.
As well, as a man, I have a theory about men and wanting children. I think it's a bell curve type thing, where about 20% of men really want children, 20% really don't want children, and 60% are basically like "whatever" and have kids/family because it's unplanned or their wife/gf has a strong maternal instinct, like a majority of women. And as far as "much more beneficial", I could strongly argue against that, but whatever.
...Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
Agreed.
If I had children, I would want all of the legally binding conventions society offers to keep them close to me.
If this guy's theoretical girlfriend is as casual about their relationship as he seems to be, placing money before union, then I guess he won't mind if said airhead female takes off with his 2 children to live in a yurt in Tibet with her new man. No matter! Can always make more kids with another airhead.
But if children are not involved, I don't care, do whatever, commitment is not for everyone.
You're first sentence is laughably ironic, considering there is no-fault divorce that can be initiated on a whim and in this country women gain custody of children a vast majority of the time (in situations where both parents file for full custody, women win an estimated 70-80% of the time due to provisions of state laws such as the definition of "primary care giver"). In some states, a man would literally need a 1080p HD video of his ex-wife snorting cocaine off a tatted biker's chest before a judge would grant him child custody.
And "airhead", that sounds like more shaming language to me. Why does a female not demanding marriage automatically make her an "airhead"? I have no interest in broad sweeping generalizations, but I do take interest in broad social trends that are supported by data. Considering you seem to think that commitment and marriage are synonymous, you must be in a favor of abolishing no-fault divorce correct? If not, then you may want to rethink just how much commitment a marriage truly gives a couple.
I have had this conversation IRL with a few women, and the question that always befuddles them (and sometimes enrages them) is "why?" Why do you think that the marriage rate is declining? Why do you think men, especially millennial men (as a poster above stated), are much more reluctant to marry? This isn't hearsay, this is a large social trend happening right now. Rather than dismissing this notion by saying "men just don't want to grow up" or some other non sequitur, what do you, as a woman, think is the reason(s)?
Once again, I do think that marriage CAN be a great thing, I am in no way disparaging happy marriages (my parents have been married for 35 years) and I would actually like the trend to be reversed (hint: it won't IMO), but in today's social climate I'm saying that it doesn't make much sense, especially for men.
My divorce was a year ago..and even at that it was pre-mustachian. The whole process cost about $25,000, most of which went to her to get set up. The amazing part, which I'm truely grateful for, is that she didn't go for or even want my TSP or military pension. Her only financial request was that I continue to pay for college for my three step children.
So, while I'm up to my eyeballs in parent plus loans, I'm supremely grateful I married a strong, independent woman...and I'd do it again. Like the man said, "Never marry a woman you can't afford to divorce."
I'm also fully aware that this debt is what brought me to Get Rich Slowly and subsequently to MMM...and my own 10 year plan for FIRE....after my hair is no longer on fire!
Case in point. You got divorced and continue to pay for step children, and say you would do it again! While providing for your step children is noble, most young men these days are simply looking at a situation like yours and going "not a chance in hell I'm falling into that trap!"
-
You're first sentence is laughably ironic, considering there is no-fault divorce that can be initiated on a whim and in this country women gain custody of children a vast majority of the time (in situations where both parents file for full custody, women win an estimated 70-80% of the time due to provisions of state laws such as the definition of "primary care giver"). In some states, a man would literally need a 1080p HD video of his ex-wife snorting cocaine off a tatted biker's chest before a judge would grant him child custody.
Please back this stat, b/c it's not at all consistent with what I've read. Although, regardless, there are so few cases where both parents actually "file for full custody" that even if it were true, it would still represent such a minuscule percentage of divorce outcomes (see below) that it strikes me as quite the red herring.
"According to DivorcePeers.com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.
In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
-
I really don't get this. The statistics say that men are happier in marriage and women are just about as happy single as in marriage. The statistics say that men are financially much much better off a few years after divorce than women.
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
-
As far as women getting more out of marriage, statistics point otherwise.
So does common sense. Women do more housework and childcare than men BY FAR. I'd say men as a rule are getting a pretty good deal out of marriage.
-
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
Well, I wouldn't say "all" men think women get the better deal. But some of them seem to think so.
It seems to me that it's b/c they may have to give up half of the "their" stache upon divorce. Women may do more childcare and housework, but then they generally make less money during the marriage. Clearly, they thus don't really contribute proportionally to the savings and are ripping men off by "taking" half. I also think that there is a greedy ex-wife stereotype that is propagated through the media/in society.
So very complainy-pants, IMHO.
-
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
My sentiment exactly. Having children is also very risky from a woman's perspective. Unlike for men, women take not only the financial risks by having kids, they also take health risks.
So if a man doesn't want a commitment to get married because it's too risky financially, then good luck finding quality female to have kids with.
So the millions of women in the Western world who have children and are together with the father, but not married, are not "quality"? That's some strong shaming language there.
Yes, and I stand by it.
50% of these women had an unintended pregnancy. Quoting the recent research:
"About 37 percent of births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, a proportion that has remained fairly steady since 1982, according to new research from the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
" About 23 percent of married women had an unintended pregnancy, compared with 50 percent of unmarried women who were living with their baby's father and 67 percent of unmarried women not living with the baby's father."
Then how many of unmarried women who had children intentionally, did it due to economic benefits, such as not to lose the welfare? My guess is 49%.
Only 1% of all the women had children intentionally while not being married that is due to genuine unwillingness to get married (my guess, have no data on this). So good luck finding those type of women.
-
I can't say many of the replies in here are surprising, but outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?
I would respect your opinion more if it weren't sexist and you had said "outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for anyone to get married these days?"
There are many ways to obtain all of the benefits of marriage in America without having most of the risk (there is no common-law marriage in the US), so if I choose to have a family one day I will probably go that route.
Wrong. Several states have common law marriage.
I have not found this to be true at all. IME, there's more extra money after paying for expenses when married/coupled. The cost of shared housing for two is usually less than double for one, utilities are usually less than double for one, health insurance, sharing a car, etc. All of this saved money can be swept straight into savings and easily makeup for a difference in incomes.
This is true if living apart, but there is basically no stigma anymore against living together, having children out of wedlock, or hell, if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Um. A kid is way more commitment than a marriage. I don't give a damn about stigma, but I'm sure as hell not going to make a commitment to choose to have a kid with a man, if he can't make the smaller commitment to get married. Maybe you'll find someone who doesn't mind, but I question the thought process that results in you thinking marriage is a bigger "risk" with someone than having out of wedlock kids.
The fact that you would even label that first statement as sexist is laughable. In aggregate I think women do get more out of a marriage then men, and they prevail at a much high rate in the courts when it comes to divorce and custody, so please continue with the ad hominems.
You're correct about common law, my mistake, but it is only essentially around in 7 states and my guess is that is willbe done away with within a generation or two.
As for your last statement, out of wedlock births are closing in on 50% of all births, so there is currently a large minority of the population who would disagree with you. I also simply said there was no stigma against it and it can be done without assuming the risks of marriage. Check your reading comprehension.
Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days? Marriage rates are declining, I'm not making it up, and I think the biggest reason is bc young men are asking themselves this question. I'd love to hear a female opinion regarding this.
A female opinion regarding this? Ok, here it is:
Who cares?
No woman gives a hoot what "young men are asking themselves," she concentrates on the thoughts and values of one particular young man at a time.
We're responsible for our own lives and wellbeing, not for maintaining the course of western civilization. Fix marriage yourself if it's such a concern to you!
-
A funny story:
When we were engaged we went to my father for financial advice, specifically how to get a pre-nup. He generally gave other couples pre-nup assistance when they came to him, which I knew since I worked in his office. He phrased it as an expression of true love to them. It showed that they were entering the marriage out of love and cared that the other person would be taken care of in the event of divorce.
However, when he heard what we wanted, he almost fell out of his chair laughing. He finally sputtered out, "What? You are going to say that you get the nothing you entered the marriage with and he gets the nothing he entered with? You don't need a pre-nup! You need a budget."
We were miffed at being treated like silly children at our extremely mature ages of 18 and 20 and went off to create a pre-nup for ourselves, carefully dividing up the science fiction novels and our few other items. When we got to our clothing my boyfriend (now husband) said, "Do we have to do the clothing? Can't we just assume that you get the skirts and I get my clothes?" We argued a bit about this since I favored completeness and he favored expediency but eventually we laughed and decided to do a prenup after we were married, when we had enough money for a proper pre-nup. (Though I suppose it wouldn't be a prenup. It would be a present-nup or something like that.)
We never really got around to it. Our finances are combined, but we started with nothing. Perhaps it would be different if we had started with something more than science fiction books, pillows, and clothes.
-
I have no interest in broad sweeping generalizations, but I do take interest in broad social trends that are supported by data. Considering you seem to think that commitment and marriage are synonymous, you must be in a favor of abolishing no-fault divorce correct? If not, then you may want to rethink just how much commitment a marriage truly gives a couple.
They are not synonymous, but their are very related. If you really want to understand this, think about marriage as a signal of commitment. It also sends many other signals to the society but I restrict my discussion to the commitment only, since that's what you've asked.
It works the same way as college education: it signals to the prospective employers that an educated person will be (on average) more productive, then uneducated person. By "educated" I mean here someone who completed a college degree.
Same with the marriage: people who marry, voluntarily incur expensive costs. The costs are financial but also may be viewed as the social restrictions on their future behaviour. As such, they send signals to the society. And yes, marriage is a strong signal of commitment to a future partner.
So from a female perspective, it is a powerful signal that a man is serious about the relationship and will stick around raising the family. In the absence of such signals, a guy must find another way to persuade a prospective partner of his commitment, and it is very hard to do practically. Not impossible, sure, but I am scratching my head, really, to think about anything.
-
So I'm a 25 y/o female - my husband is also 25, we've been together for >5.5 years (met in college). Some of the previous comments are quite misogynistic and make me unhappy.
I share some of the wariness offered earlier - I am quite protective of my finances, as I am on top of them and quite proud of what I accomplished on my own. So ... I dated someone for a long time before I married him, learning his values and habits along the way, so that I married someone who was an asset to my health and life and wealth. We brought a similar amount of retirement savings to the marriage (about 50K each). We are equals, we support each others careers. Certainly, it is harder to consider both of our careers instead of just thinking of one of us when it comes to moving, etc. But I am thrilled to be collaborating on life with him, entrusting him with end of life decisions, sharing our goals.
I am a huuuuge fan of prenups. I really wish that we had a situation that warranted one, so that we could be an example to friends and family. But - we had a similar amount of savings & investments, and believe that everything we earn while married should be shared jointly, so a prenup made no sense. I have no idea who will earn more over the course of our working years - there are so many unknowns in that equation. But I know for a fact that he enables me to take more risks, have more confidence, and pursue harder and further. And I hope the converse is true. I can't predict the future, (and as I said in my vows) I can't promise forever - but I can promise all that I can give, and I'm certain both of us will be enriched by the marriage, even if it ends. (All that said, I was certainly not interested in marrying someone that isn't financially able to support himself.)
-
I really don't get this. The statistics say that men are happier in marriage and women are just about as happy single as in marriage. The statistics say that men are financially much much better off a few years after divorce than women.
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
All men don't think that. It's the men you don't want to marry who think that. And I that's great because it's an easy culling tool.
-
...Yes, and I stand by it.
50% of these women had an unintended pregnancy. Quoting the recent research:
"About 37 percent of births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, a proportion that has remained fairly steady since 1982, according to new research from the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
" About 23 percent of married women had an unintended pregnancy, compared with 50 percent of unmarried women who were living with their baby's father and 67 percent of unmarried women not living with the baby's father."
Then how many of unmarried women who had children intentionally, did it due to economic benefits, such as not to lose the welfare? My guess is 49%.
Only 1% of all the women had children intentionally while not being married that is due to genuine unwillingness to get married (my guess, have no data on this). So good luck finding those type of women.
This is very interesting. I didn't know how to address jka468's challenge, but I know with absolute certainty at my advanced age with much life experience :) that a huge percentage of women who wish to reproduce expect to be married when they do so. So I'm glad you came up with a measure.
I heard a radio interview last year that stuck with me, an interview on NPR with several unmarried couples with children. None of their reasons for remaining unmarried were compelling to me, including this gem "we don't want to get married because we don't want to put our children through a divorce, if it ever came to that." I don't grok it, if the couple breaks up how's an unmarried "daddy is gone from your life now" breakup different from a marriage breakup?
I DO believe that there are compelling, non-financial reasons for remaining unmarried. One rationale I heard that resonated with me: a couple said they work every day on their commitment to one another to maintain a strong bond rather than relying on society's piece of paper. They were afraid that a marriage license would lull them into complacency. I was touched by this and can understand that reasoning.
I think that a majority of people won't be this introspective and thoughtful about commitment, though. Most women who reproduce wish to be married. It's pretty simple.
And now just to make jka468's head explode I'll relate this: an old boyfriend of mine was with his "wife" for ten years before they split. They were never legally married. He paid her alimony for ten years even though he wasn't legally required to do that. He felt it was his duty since she had worked during much of his schooling. He and I were dating during that period of alimony and he didn't have a lot of money, but we had fun and he was fine with it all, and decades later he DID did retire early. So there! :)
-
Same with the marriage: people who marry, voluntarily incur expensive costs. The costs are financial but also may be viewed as the social restrictions on their future behaviour.
What in the world are you talking about? Sharing a household reduces costs.
-
Same with the marriage: people who marry, voluntarily incur expensive costs. The costs are financial but also may be viewed as the social restrictions on their future behaviour.
What in the world are you talking about? Sharing a household reduces costs.
And even the "social restrictions" can be debated; the only relevant question is what goes and what doesn't - this can (and should) always be discussed in a relationship.
If you and your partner are both fine for example, if any other would have a "satellite partner" (for fun things you know), where is the problem? A Problem only arises, if one partner would do things "breaking the contract".
-
You're first sentence is laughably ironic, considering there is no-fault divorce that can be initiated on a whim and in this country women gain custody of children a vast majority of the time (in situations where both parents file for full custody, women win an estimated 70-80% of the time due to provisions of state laws such as the definition of "primary care giver"). In some states, a man would literally need a 1080p HD video of his ex-wife snorting cocaine off a tatted biker's chest before a judge would grant him child custody.
Please back this stat, b/c it's not at all consistent with what I've read. Although, regardless, there are so few cases where both parents actually "file for full custody" that even if it were true, it would still represent such a minuscule percentage of divorce outcomes (see below) that it strikes me as quite the red herring.
"According to DivorcePeers.com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.
In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
Let's actually look deeper at that 51% (without even delving into the other numbers). Most cases are not disputed because it has been general practice for men not to dispute custody because it is futile (this is changing a bit, but still a heavy handed practice). Why waste time/money when your lawyer advises you that, as a man, because you most likely can't be deemed as the "primary caretaker", you have basically no chance to win custody? There is a huge bias there, and you're not going to tell me that all of those men simply were like "nope, don't want my kids, you take 'em", especially considering women initiate 2/3 to 4/5 of all divorces (depending on source).
I really don't get this. The statistics say that men are happier in marriage and women are just about as happy single as in marriage. The statistics say that men are financially much much better off a few years after divorce than women.
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
The stats were also posted in this thread, and that's not really what they said. They basically said that men in happy marriages are happier than singles and divorced men. All I can basically say to that is "duh". I then posited that the chance of being in a "happy" marriage for a man is around 30% overall, factoring in the divorce rate and the rate of unhappy marriages that stay together for various reasons.
The stats also stated that in the case of divorce, men are hit MUCH MUCH harder, not only financially, but emotionally and mentally. One of highest suicide rate demographics in the country is from middle age divorced men. Think that is a coincidence?
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
Well, I wouldn't say "all" men think women get the better deal. But some of them seem to think so.
It seems to me that it's b/c they may have to give up half of the "their" stache upon divorce. Women may do more childcare and housework, but then they generally make less money during the marriage. Clearly, they thus don't really contribute proportionally to the savings and are ripping men off by "taking" half. I also think that there is a greedy ex-wife stereotype that is propagated through the media/in society.
So very complainy-pants, IMHO.
I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men. You would think that this would give men incentive to marry by your logic, but nope, not happening. There are many, many other reasons besides losing their "stache" (though it's in there) that young men don't want to marry.
A female opinion regarding this? Ok, here it is:
Who cares?
No woman gives a hoot what "young men are asking themselves," she concentrates on the thoughts and values of one particular young man at a time.
We're responsible for our own lives and wellbeing, not for maintaining the course of western civilization. Fix marriage yourself if it's such a concern to you!
I can't even believe how short sighted this mindset is. For your sake I hope you don't have children, especially boys. If you somehow don't think that social trends not only impact culture, but your own life as well, then you are sadly mistaken. Should others not have cared about the opinions of blacks during the Civil War? How about the Jim Crow south? How about female opinions regarding equality and voting? And don't straw-man by trying to disengage these issues with this one, because my point stands. This discussion is having a major social/economic impact on THIS young generation, and it's only going to get more prevalent in future generations.
But I get it, it doesn't affect YOU, in this particular moment, so you don't care. This is EXACTLY why young men are saying "marriage, nah, not for me", because there are so many women, according to your own words, who don't give two cents about male thoughts, fears, concerns, etc. Without caring about a broad trend then your thoughts about "one particular man" are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
I have no interest in broad sweeping generalizations, but I do take interest in broad social trends that are supported by data. Considering you seem to think that commitment and marriage are synonymous, you must be in a favor of abolishing no-fault divorce correct? If not, then you may want to rethink just how much commitment a marriage truly gives a couple.
They are not synonymous, but their are very related. If you really want to understand this, think about marriage as a signal of commitment. It also sends many other signals to the society but I restrict my discussion to the commitment only, since that's what you've asked.
It works the same way as college education: it signals to the prospective employers that an educated person will be (on average) more productive, then uneducated person. By "educated" I mean here someone who completed a college degree.
Same with the marriage: people who marry, voluntarily incur expensive costs. The costs are financial but also may be viewed as the social restrictions on their future behaviour. As such, they send signals to the society. And yes, marriage is a strong signal of commitment to a future partner.
So from a female perspective, it is a powerful signal that a man is serious about the relationship and will stick around raising the family. In the absence of such signals, a guy must find another way to persuade a prospective partner of his commitment, and it is very hard to do practically. Not impossible, sure, but I am scratching my head, really, to think about anything.
Trust me, I get it and I fully understand marriage as a signal. My point is that many are realizing that due to no-fault divorce, marriage is easily seen as false proxy for commitment, and it has lost a vast majority of it's value beyond social validation in certain groups. Once again, I point to the fact that divorce is initiated that by women 2/3 to 4/5 of the time, depending on the source. Are men blameless? No, but it is well documented that men are much more willing to stick out a marriage than a woman, and no one is going to tell me that that high a percentage of married men are all somehow abusive or adulterous (in fact, many studies have shown that domestic abuse and infidelity are nearly equal between the sexes. Men simply don't report domestic abuse nearly as much as women, and women are much much better at keeping quiet their extramarital affairs).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201311/do-men-or-women-file-divorce-more-often
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html
And yes, you are completely correct in that social and financial costs are incurred by marriage, but due to the circumstances of today many young men are not seeing these costs as worth the reward. Many young men are starting to realize that sex, commitment, family, etc. can all be had without taking on the risks of marriage, and the funny thing is that the past couple generations of women are what brought upon this change, unknowingly.
I sincerely believe that this discussion has a strong generational gap between me (mid 20s millennial man) and older women. I see these trends every single day, in both men and women, and because of it, it's estimated that 20+% of millennial women will never marry, with that number increasing in future generations.
...Yes, and I stand by it.
50% of these women had an unintended pregnancy. Quoting the recent research:
"About 37 percent of births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, a proportion that has remained fairly steady since 1982, according to new research from the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
" About 23 percent of married women had an unintended pregnancy, compared with 50 percent of unmarried women who were living with their baby's father and 67 percent of unmarried women not living with the baby's father."
Then how many of unmarried women who had children intentionally, did it due to economic benefits, such as not to lose the welfare? My guess is 49%.
Only 1% of all the women had children intentionally while not being married that is due to genuine unwillingness to get married (my guess, have no data on this). So good luck finding those type of women.
This is very interesting. I didn't know how to address jka468's challenge, but I know with absolute certainty at my advanced age with much life experience :) that a huge percentage of women who wish to reproduce expect to be married when they do so. So I'm glad you came up with a measure.
I heard a radio interview last year that stuck with me, an interview on NPR with several unmarried couples with children. None of their reasons for remaining unmarried were compelling to me, including this gem "we don't want to get married because we don't want to put our children through a divorce, if it ever came to that." I don't grok it, if the couple breaks up how's an unmarried "daddy is gone from your life now" breakup different from a marriage breakup?
I DO believe that there are compelling, non-financial reasons for remaining unmarried. One rationale I heard that resonated with me: a couple said they work every day on their commitment to one another to maintain a strong bond rather than relying on society's piece of paper. They were afraid that a marriage license would lull them into complacency. I was touched by this and can understand that reasoning.
I think that a majority of people won't be this introspective and thoughtful about commitment, though. Most women who reproduce wish to be married. It's pretty simple.
And now just to make jka468's head explode I'll relate this: an old boyfriend of mine was with his "wife" for ten years before they split. They were never legally married. He paid her alimony for ten years even though he wasn't legally required to do that. He felt it was his duty since she had worked during much of his schooling. He and I were dating during that period of alimony and he didn't have a lot of money, but we had fun and he was fine with it all, and decades later he DID did retire early. So there! :)
Even if your second sentence is true, an idea that I personally think is changing, then there are going to be a lot of millennial women who either...
1) do not reproduce, against their own desires, because they can't find a marriage partner
2) or reproduce out of wedlock, against their own desires
Those are just the facts. This wasn't a problem for past generations, but it is becoming a problem for the current one and younger ones. According to one female poster, as a man I shouldn't care about all females, but hey, I care about society as a whole and it's direction.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc
This is a pretty solid opinion piece summarizing the thoughts of a lot of young men. I don't agree with everything, but it's close. Basically, I have a degree in engineering and a minor in economics, and I think of this situation in a very logical/economical manner. Everyone, no matter what they do, is doing something based on incentives. It's clear to me that marriage has lost much of it's incentive for men.
And I also don't see why my head would explode. One man's actions do not equate to all men and a vast majority of men would never do this.
-
I have no interest in broad sweeping generalizations, but I do take interest in broad social trends that are supported by data. Considering you seem to think that commitment and marriage are synonymous, you must be in a favor of abolishing no-fault divorce correct? If not, then you may want to rethink just how much commitment a marriage truly gives a couple.
So from a female perspective, it is a powerful signal that a man is serious about the relationship and will stick around raising the family. In the absence of such signals, a guy must find another way to persuade a prospective partner of his commitment, and it is very hard to do practically. Not impossible, sure, but I am scratching my head, really, to think about anything.
I wanted to address this idea in particular...
In reality, it's really not that hard these days for a man to obtain commitment without marriage (details I can go into further if you like), but the crux of everything I've been saying is that the MOST marriageable men, based on female standards (which are some particular mix of good looking, financially secure, educated, tall, well built, intelligent, motivated, etc.) have the LEAST incentive to marry these days. Please, any ladies reading this, ask yourself WHY this would be, without dismissing the notion or using a No True Scotsman like "well, this guy isn't actually marriage material after all then if he doesn't want to marry". 50 years ago, hell 30 years ago, this same guy would probably be married by 25yo, and be happy to do it, but now he isn't. Why?
Not to be a douche, but I'm basically one of these guys, as are many of my friends. It is beyond easy for guys like me to date multiple women, obtain casual sex/a short-term gf/a long-term gf or any combination of the three, and while it might not be as easy for other guys, it's not exactly hard anymore. As well, basically EVERY young guy I know has seen some family member or friend go through a divorce (maybe their own parents) and they see what it can do emotionally and financially.
Basically it's this...Poor or working class guys want to get married, but women don't want to marry these guys these days (where as before these men would be fine marriage prospects), and educated professional guys are very wary of getting married, and are deciding to delay it or continually play the field (because they can and they assume virtually no risk with this). IMO this trend is only going to grow over the next 20 years.
-
However, when he heard what we wanted, he almost fell out of his chair laughing. He finally sputtered out, "What? You are going to say that you get the nothing you entered the marriage with and he gets the nothing he entered with? You don't need a pre-nup! You need a budget."
My prenup specifically says that I keep the cat. ;)
She's dead now... I guess I'll have to go check the wording to see if it applies to post-nuptual cats.
-
Jka, you keep making broad generalizations without support. Please provide support for your arguments, preferably facts, research, studies, or training, rather than anecdotal stories.
Let's actually look deeper at that 51% (without even delving into the other numbers). Most cases are not disputed because it has been general practice for men not to dispute custody because it is futile (this is changing a bit, but still a heavy handed practice). Why waste time/money when your lawyer advises you that, as a man, because you most likely can't be deemed as the "primary caretaker", you have basically no chance to win custody? There is a huge bias there, and you're not going to tell me that all of those men simply were like "nope, don't want my kids, you take 'em", especially considering women initiate 2/3 to 4/5 of all divorces (depending on source).
What is your support for this? I've worked pro bono in family law in two states (once for a Custody and Support Assistance Clinic and once for the local courthouse's "Lawyer for a Day" program). In both states, I was trained to advise, and did advise, that there is a presumption that it is in the "best interests of the child" (BIOC for short) that the child have a relationship with both parents, and that courts prefer to grant joint physical (who has the kid day to day) and legal custody (should the kid get vaccinated etc.) when possible. I also took a family law class, where we learned that BIOC is the standard imposed in most states. I'm not sure where you are hearing that family lawyers are advising men not to try for any type of physical custody at all, or in what states, but frankly - I think that's probably poor lawyering.
I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men
Really? Although there has been improvement, a wage gap continues to persist.
“Female CEOs earned nearly 80% of their male counterparts' compensation in 2013, according to a study from the Institute for Women's Policy Research based on Labor Department data.”
Source: http://online.wsj.com/articles/female-ceos-make-strides-but-pay-gap-persists-1401232881
“On average, women who work full-time earn about 77 cents for every dollar a full-time male worker earns. Because of the wage gap, since 1960, the real median earnings of women have fallen short by more than half a million dollars compared to men.”
“A recent AAUW report – Graduating to a Pay Gap – found an unexplainable seven percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation, even after accounting for many factors including college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours worked, workplace flexibility, experience, educational attainment, enrollment status, GPA, college selectivity, age, race/ethnicity, region, marital status, and motherhood. Clearly, the wage gap persists.”
http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/public-policy/aauw-issues/gender-pay-gap/
Here's a long discussion, with citations to studies, of the pay gap persisting even after controlling for factors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States Also note the discussion on pay premium for married men.
I then posited that the chance of being in a "happy" marriage for a man is around 30% overall, factoring in the divorce rate and the rate of unhappy marriages that stay together for various reasons.
This isn’t really a valid way to calculate a “happy” marriage. I’ll leave it to one of our statistical experts to explain that but consider this: there are many reasons a divorced man might be unhappy – he could, for example, have realized he made a huge mistake getting the divorced.
My point is that many are realizing that due to no-fault divorce, marriage is easily seen as false proxy for commitment, and it has lost a vast majority of it's value beyond social validation in certain groups.
In with a no-fault divorce, there are still hurdles to the divorce – it takes time and money to decide the various issues.
Even if your second sentence is true, an idea that I personally think is changing, then there are going to be a lot of millennial women who either...
1) do not reproduce, against their own desires, because they can't find a marriage partner
2) or reproduce out of wedlock, against their own desires
Or 3) have children without a partner
I have two friends that prefer to raise a child by themselves than out of wedlock with a partner. One is seeking to adopt (filed paperwork ~2 years ago), the other is considering freezing her eggs for in vitro in a few years.
With the advent of birth control and availability of abortions, women of higher socioeconomic classes have the ability to avoid 2 if they desire. (This likely accounts for the substantially high percentage of unmarried births by women of lower socioeconomic classes.
Looking at all of the facts and statistics, both men AND women are choosing to delay marriage and get married at lower rates. I don’t doubt that. What I do question is why you persist in saying it’s just men that don’t want to get married or have it worse off when they do get married. You still haven’t provided any support for that argument, while folks have provided support for marriage being better for men (health, etc) than women.
-
Let's actually look deeper at that 51% (without even delving into the other numbers). Most cases are not disputed because it has been general practice for men not to dispute custody because it is futile (this is changing a bit, but still a heavy handed practice). Why waste time/money when your lawyer advises you that, as a man, because you most likely can't be deemed as the "primary caretaker", you have basically no chance to win custody? There is a huge bias there, and you're not going to tell me that all of those men simply were like "nope, don't want my kids, you take 'em", especially considering women initiate 2/3 to 4/5 of all divorces (depending on source).
This seems iffy. You're ignoring the fact that many men have traditional family values. Women are the predominant stay at home parent not because they deviously force or trick men into supporting them, but because both spouses believe that having a parent at home is best for a child and many believe that the woman is the best candidate. Many men were raised by stay at home mothers and believe that their children should also be raised by stay at home mothers.
The decision to have the mother be the primary caregiver during the marriage is generally a joint decision. The reasons behind that decision continue to make sense after the divorce.
Most cases are not disputed, because despite popular belief, most divorces/custody issues are not super contentious. Most people don't have a load of assets at play. Most people want to minimize disruption to the children by maintaining the marital status quo as much as possible. Many people divorce without ever hiring a lawyer.
I actually have some serious doubt about your statistic about women initiating divorce - do you mean that they file the paperwork? You make it sound like women serve their happy husbands with divorce papers and say, "Surprise! We're getting a divorce! FYI - I'm keeping the kids, now get out of my house!" That's not how the typical divorce occurs.
-
CC, to address your points in order...
1) Women have custody 70-80% of the time and BIOC relies heavily on "primary caretaker" prior to divorce. Women are disproportionately labeled as the primary caretaker, regardless of the circumstances. Also, you did not address women initiating divorce at the rate they do...
2) Please STOP with this wage gap myth, it's been debunked repeatedly. You are citing sources that have a major biased agenda. Hell, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that never married, childless women earn 96% of what men make, and the discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that women like other perks (more time off, health care plans, etc.) and do not negotiate salaries as often as men. Here you go, something from the huffington post, a bastion of feminist ideology...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472
I'll also mention, that in aggregate, who do you think bears the higher financial cost of the dating market, men or women? We both know that answer. While women love to preach equality, and God knows I'm all for it, it is still very much expected that men pay for dates or else be looked upon less favorably.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/
3) A divorced man is unhappy because he made a mistake? C'mon, not because he lost finances, his children and was probably blindsided by the divorce (many anecdotes to this in this thread alone)? Let's use Occam's Razor here...I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.
4) No, no fault divorce is extremely easy as filling out paperwork and then handling the finances and other issues later.
5) Having children without a partner is true, and while I applaud your first friend, as adopting is noble, I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do, as she is essentially playing the star role in a movie that is her life, and dammit if she isn't going going to have a baby in this movie. This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country and gender relations. Obviously I'll never really know, but as a betting man I'd place tons of money on this second friend now (or at some point) being on some type of anti-depressant/bi-polar/anxiety medication.
And yes, I basically debunked the article about men being happier in marriage. Of course the benefits of a happy marriage make men happier and healthier. That's essentially what the article said, and I'm not debating that "duh" logic. What I'm saying, and what the article basically said, is that divorced men, or men in unhappy marriages, are significantly less healthy and happy than their single or cohabiting counterparts. Why is this so difficult to understand? As well, in the best case scenario, for a man just getting married, the odds of him having a happy marriage would be 40%, and probably closer to what I guessed before at 30%. 40% ain't too good in my book.
Simply put, most people, not just men, are risk averse. If I told a guy "here you go, you have to decide to get married right now if you wanna do it. You have a 40% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness better and a 60% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness worse. You wanna do it?" While I realize this is glib in it's simplicity, a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
CC, throughout your posts I've clearly noticed a bias towards you asserting your "strong, independent woman" vibe, for which I have no problem with, but please don't push a false agenda. I have no issue with women or men doing whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I believe in gender equality when it comes to education, prospects, work, etc. All I am saying is that based on actions, there are consequences, and the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game and that this will have major social/economic tolls in the coming years. Is it all the fault of women? No. Is it all the fault of men? No. But most people simply want to hear what they want to hear and place the blame on a different group without being critical of their own group.
-
Let's actually look deeper at that 51% (without even delving into the other numbers). Most cases are not disputed because it has been general practice for men not to dispute custody because it is futile (this is changing a bit, but still a heavy handed practice). Why waste time/money when your lawyer advises you that, as a man, because you most likely can't be deemed as the "primary caretaker", you have basically no chance to win custody? There is a huge bias there, and you're not going to tell me that all of those men simply were like "nope, don't want my kids, you take 'em", especially considering women initiate 2/3 to 4/5 of all divorces (depending on source).
This seems iffy. You're ignoring the fact that many men have traditional family values. Women are the predominant stay at home parent not because they deviously force or trick men into supporting them, but because both spouses believe that having a parent at home is best for a child and many believe that the woman is the best candidate. Many men were raised by stay at home mothers and believe that their children should also be raised by stay at home mothers.
The decision to have the mother be the primary caregiver during the marriage is generally a joint decision. The reasons behind that decision continue to make sense after the divorce.
Most cases are not disputed, because despite popular belief, most divorces/custody issues are not super contentious. Most people don't have a load of assets at play. Most people want to minimize disruption to the children by maintaining the marital status quo as much as possible. Many people divorce without ever hiring a lawyer.
I actually have some serious doubt about your statistic about women initiating divorce - do you mean that they file the paperwork? You make it sound like women serve their happy husbands with divorce papers and say, "Surprise! We're getting a divorce! FYI - I'm keeping the kids, now get out of my house!" That's not how the typical divorce occurs.
Once again, I think this is a generational thing. Many many millennial men DO NOT have traditional values and DO NOT think a wife should be at home with the kids (read below). I actually think that a majority believe that a wife SHOULD be working. As well, most millennials were not raised by an at home mother (you completely pulled this out of thin air), but rather by two working parents or parents of a divorce.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/21/gender-millennials-dormitories-sex/10573099/
Also, the divorce stats aren't mine, read the links I have provided.
-
What I said:
Many men were raised by stay at home mothers and believe that their children should also be raised by stay at home mothers.
What you said:
As well, most millennials were not raised by an at home mother (you completely pulled this out of thin air), but rather by two working parents or parents of a divorce.
I'm not sure who is pulling what out of thin air here?
Since neither one of us has provided stats of how many millenials were raised with a stay-at-home parent vs working parents, there's no point in arguing about it (I wasn't even talking about millenials - but I will now).
But I'll say this: If what you say is true, that most millennials did not experience a stay-at-home parent and most millennials believe that both parents should work... Then what's your hang up about marriage, again? In your opinion, there is no true gender wage gap, millennials reject stay-at-home parenting, millennials reject financial inequality... Why should they be afraid of marriage? Divorce only ends up really bad for one party if there's financial inequality of some sort. But in situations with complete equality of finances and child care - there is absolutely no reason to believe that a divorce would produce anything other than an equal outcome.
Furthermore, from the article you liked:
About 85 percent of Millennial men and women say that having a successful marriage is very important to them.
This doesn't make it sound like millennials are afraid of marriage at all.
Virtually all Millennials (95 percent of women and 93 percent of men) place an even greater premium on being a good parent.
Why should we think that millenials won't be able to negotiate custody disputes in an equitable way, given their intense desire to be good parents?
Finally - something that ends up getting in the way of discussing "millenials" in generalities is this: Peoples' values are highly geographically dependent. I live in the midwest, where most millenials probably really did have a stay-at-home parent for at least part of their lives, and many millenials seem to be inclined toward a traditional family situation. And why not? Culturally, people here are not the same as people in New York or California or Washington State or Canada.
Millenials in Utah (61% of all households were husband-wife) are not making the same decisions as millenials in New york (43% husband-wife). [Census]
-
What I said:
Many men were raised by stay at home mothers and believe that their children should also be raised by stay at home mothers.
What you said:
As well, most millennials were not raised by an at home mother (you completely pulled this out of thin air), but rather by two working parents or parents of a divorce.
I'm not sure who is pulling what out of thin air here?
Since neither one of us has provided stats of how many millenials were raised with a stay-at-home parent vs working parents, there's no point in arguing about it (I wasn't even talking about millenials - but I will now).
But I'll say this: If what you say is true, that most millennials did not experience a stay-at-home parent and most millennials believe that both parents should work... Then what's your hang up about marriage, again? In your opinion, there is no true gender wage gap, millennials reject stay-at-home parenting, millennials reject financial inequality... Why should they be afraid of marriage? Divorce only ends up really bad for one party if there's financial inequality of some sort. But in situations with complete equality of finances and child care - there is absolutely no reason to believe that a divorce would produce anything other than an equal outcome.
Furthermore, from the article you liked:
About 85 percent of Millennial men and women say that having a successful marriage is very important to them.
This doesn't make it sound like millennials are afraid of marriage at all.
Virtually all Millennials (95 percent of women and 93 percent of men) place an even greater premium on being a good parent.
Why should we think that millenials won't be able to negotiate custody disputes in an equitable way, given their intense desire to be good parents?
Finally - something that ends up getting in the way of discussing "millenials" in generalities is this: Peoples' values are highly geographically dependent. I live in the midwest, where most millenials probably really did have a stay-at-home parent for at least part of their lives, and many millenials seem to be inclined toward a traditional family situation. And why not? Culturally, people here are not the same as people in New York or California or Washington State or Canada.
Millenials in Utah (61% of all households were husband-wife) are not making the same decisions as millenials in New york (43% husband-wife). [Census]
I didn't pull it out of thin air, I just knew the facts. Here is US census data going back to 1995, which includes some of the millennial generation (born between 1981-late 90s). As far back as 1995, <20% of all married households with children had a stay-at-home parent, and obviously single-parent households do not have a stay-at-home parent, indicating that a large majority of millennials grew up without a stay-at-home parent.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0068.pdf
And I don't really have a hang-up against the institution of marriage per se, I'm just insisting that it's a dying mechanism in the US. Ideally I do think it can have great benefits, I just think the incentives for marriage, especially for men, are simply out of whack in these times for a variety of reasons. I'll gladly celebrate at a buddy's wedding, but I'm just saying en masse, it doesn't make much sense and that's starting to show through in various trends.
As well, thank you for reading the article. While millennials do say that want a marriage, and ideally (I think this is another story) I think they do, realize that the 85% mark includes more women than men and the real numbers are clearly showing different, as millennials are getting married later than ever or not getting married at all at the highest rate in history. The fact that millennials place higher importance on children than marriage, and don't seem to equate the two, is somewhat telling to me at least and lends credence to some of my previous points.
And absolutely, geography, along with a million other factors, affects things, but these trends will affect most Americans at some point (some sooner than later), which is why it becomes important and people shouldn't just say "well it's not happening in my back yard, so who cares?".
-
Small big rant here: TL:DR - this discussion has gotten short-sighted and petty.
There was a comment on men being "blind-sided" by wives wanting out - I took a small sample (n=2) which indicated that women often are very upfront about issues in their relationships, the men pooh-pooh the concerns, and then are surprised when the women leave. "Everything was fine, what happened?" Well, everything was not fine, they didn't listen, they didn't change behaviours, and the obvious happened.
As I said, my n=2, this won't always apply.
Also, historically women had no recourse in unhappy marriages, once they had more financial resources and legal rights they were able to contemplate going it on their own. What is the saying? Better a cottage where happiness lives than a palace without? Lots of women are choosing the cottages. Society discourages divorce in an agricultural society, because a farm needs a minimum of a couple and their children to be economically viable. The nobility/wealthy could always get divorces/annulments.
Re age - those of us who are "older" have lived through societal changes which may give us a bit more perspective. We have lived thorough "Divorce is a four letter word and whispered about" to the advent of modern birth control to high divorce rates. Of course every generation has some hard truths it has to learn on its own. Have fun, Millennials, you are not facing anything harder than we went through in the late 60's and early 70's with the sexual revolution. It's not any easier though, society has not totally adjusted to that one yet. Go read divorce law from the 50's and see if you like it any more, those of you who are complaining about present-day legislation. Wives who HAD to leave the work force when they got married (yes, that was standard, happened to my mother) got alimony (for them,not the children) all their lives, because they could not support themselves.
Also, remember during this discussion that it may well be very country specific - the US is not Canada is not western Europe is not Scandinavia is not etc. etc. Living together and having children is going to be a very different situation in two culturally different regions.
I am reading "Climate Wars" at the moment. I seriously think (and have always thought, for other reasons) our planet would be better off if we cut down (that is a planet-wide we) on the number of children, had them later to lengthen generation time, and had more of us refrain from having them at all. In Europe in the Middle Ages, many men and women did not have children (they were monks and nuns), most married late (I read once that average age of marriage for women then was 26), men married later (not until they could support a wife either through an established farm or a trade) and had other cultural practices to keep the birth rate down. It is pioneer societies (with lots of new land to be settled) that encourage young marriages and lots of children (i.e. the Americas once Europeans arrived). And from a population biology perspective, having men who are not interested in their children father children is anti-survival from a species viewpoint. So guys ( and girls), if you don't want kids, don't have them, and your genes can get left out of the gene pool. Its better for the species/kids to have parents who want them. And for the first time in human history, we can do this without too much difficulty (i.e. having to join a monastic order, or live with massive child mortality rates).
One more point - having children when a woman is in her 30's increases the risk of chromosomal abnormalities, and health issues for the mother. Sure you can know ahead of time, but having to decide whether or not to abort because of a serious problem is heart-breaking. This is why women have the "Ticking biological clock". What is less well known is that as men age they are also more likely to father children with chromosomal abnormalities. So, men also have a ticking clock, they just don't know it and don't have it affecting their decisions. These days, I believe, fertility issues are about 1/3 her, 1/3 him, and 1/3 them. Of course the men never believe it could have anything to do with them until the doctor tells them, society is so used to assuming fertility issues are "her" issues. So they put off marriage and parenthood, not considering the long-term implications.
Rant over.
-
I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men.
Mentioning that you are a "millennial" a gazillion times throughout the thread does not designate you as the generation's spokesperson.
And you might want to check your assumptions. I too am a "millennial", and a woman who is not only more educated than my husband, but who also is the sole financial provider for our household (although I haven't seen the stats showing that women earning more is "average," even in our generation). So, I would disagree that my perspective results from "older female" non-millennial "idealism".
-
This article http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/for-better-or-worse-expect-better-to-avoid-worse-20140925-10m0rg.html says it all - if you expect divorce, it will happen.
-
I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.
...
a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
If men are so anxious to avoid the "legal trappings" of marriage, why are they more reluctant to divorce? How do you reconcile those two statements?
the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game
Assuming this "dropping out" is a thing (I'm unconvinced, but I'm not addressing that now), can you explain the cause and effect here? I don't see how the one follows from the other.
-
Small
There was a comment on men being "blind-sided" by wives wanting out - I took a small sample (n=2) which indicated that women often are very upfront about issues in their relationships, the men pooh-pooh the concerns, and then are surprised when the women leave. "Everything was fine, what happened?" Well, everything was not fine, they didn't listen, they didn't change behaviours, and the obvious happened.
As I said, my n=2, this won't always apply.
For n=3, I can say this is exactly the dynamic between my MIL and FIL. FIL is positively oblivious to how infuriatingly difficult he is to live with, and there is no reason he should be surprised should MIL ever finally pull the trigger on divorcing him. Yet I guarantee he will claim he was blindsided: anytime MIL brings her issues to his attention, he claims that she is having a nervous breakdown. In his mind, her upset/complaints/issues never have anything to do with him.
***
I've read this thread with interest. Very sorry to those who have been through the wringer with a divorce. So far, 4 years in, DH and I are happily married. With the cautionary tale of his parents' relationship staring us in the face, we communicate a lot to be sure we are not drifting in directions that could lead to where they are.
I agree with the poster who said that, whatever the broader trends are about whether men want to get married these days, it does ultimately boil down to the two specific people in a relationship, what they each want, and whether those are compatible things. Meaning, sure each person has been influenced to whatever degree by their peers/"culture" but stereotypes often fall apart at the individual level.
-
This article http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/for-better-or-worse-expect-better-to-avoid-worse-20140925-10m0rg.html says it all - if you expect divorce, it will happen.
Seems like a anecdotal opinion piece.
Why not expect the best, but prepare for the worst?
-
I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...
... and you lost me.
Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s). But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.
-
CC, to address your points in order...
1) Women have custody 70-80% of the time and BIOC relies heavily on "primary caretaker" prior to divorce. Women are disproportionately labeled as the primary caretaker, regardless of the circumstances. Also, you did not address women initiating divorce at the rate they do...
2) Please STOP with this wage gap myth, it's been debunked repeatedly. You are citing sources that have a major biased agenda. Hell, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that never married, childless women earn 96% of what men make, and the discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that women like other perks (more time off, health care plans, etc.) and do not negotiate salaries as often as men. Here you go, something from the huffington post, a bastion of feminist ideology...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472
I'll also mention, that in aggregate, who do you think bears the higher financial cost of the dating market, men or women? We both know that answer. While women love to preach equality, and God knows I'm all for it, it is still very much expected that men pay for dates or else be looked upon less favorably.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/
3) A divorced man is unhappy because he made a mistake? C'mon, not because he lost finances, his children and was probably blindsided by the divorce (many anecdotes to this in this thread alone)? Let's use Occam's Razor here...I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.
4) No, no fault divorce is extremely easy as filling out paperwork and then handling the finances and other issues later.
5) Having children without a partner is true, and while I applaud your first friend, as adopting is noble, I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do, as she is essentially playing the star role in a movie that is her life, and dammit if she isn't going going to have a baby in this movie. This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country and gender relations. Obviously I'll never really know, but as a betting man I'd place tons of money on this second friend now (or at some point) being on some type of anti-depressant/bi-polar/anxiety medication.
And yes, I basically debunked the article about men being happier in marriage. Of course the benefits of a happy marriage make men happier and healthier. That's essentially what the article said, and I'm not debating that "duh" logic. What I'm saying, and what the article basically said, is that divorced men, or men in unhappy marriages, are significantly less healthy and happy than their single or cohabiting counterparts. Why is this so difficult to understand? As well, in the best case scenario, for a man just getting married, the odds of him having a happy marriage would be 40%, and probably closer to what I guessed before at 30%. 40% ain't too good in my book.
Simply put, most people, not just men, are risk averse. If I told a guy "here you go, you have to decide to get married right now if you wanna do it. You have a 40% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness better and a 60% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness worse. You wanna do it?" While I realize this is glib in it's simplicity, a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
CC, throughout your posts I've clearly noticed a bias towards you asserting your "strong, independent woman" vibe, for which I have no problem with, but please don't push a false agenda. I have no issue with women or men doing whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I believe in gender equality when it comes to education, prospects, work, etc. All I am saying is that based on actions, there are consequences, and the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game and that this will have major social/economic tolls in the coming years. Is it all the fault of women? No. Is it all the fault of men? No. But most people simply want to hear what they want to hear and place the blame on a different group without being critical of their own group.
To play it safe, and avoid getting ensnared by evil and manipulative harridans and succubi, you should never get married, have sex, or speak to a woman ever again. Better yet, don't speak to anyone ever again (who knows how wily the black female heart may be??). We all thank you in advance.
-
JK... stands for Just Kidding, right?
So, you seem to deeply, deeply want young women to want marriage. You have one theme: how concerned women should be with some men's disinterest in marriage. Here's what I take away from that. Marriage is very important to you. You are distressed that you don't see it available to you on the terms acceptable to you. You think your situation can best be improved by collective action, preferably by people who are not you, specifically by women. To this end, you hope young women can be convinced that too many men have, like you, lost interest in marriage.
Yet there are other men in this thread saying that they enjoy their marriage, or that they intend to be married to a woman they love.
Well, I'm going to turn this back on you. I challenge you to fix this problem that concerns you. What are you doing to make marriage appeal to the subset of women who currently have no interest in it?
But the better question-- do men need to collectively court women? If not, why do women need to collectively court men?
Look, if you want to strengthen marriage in our country, attract a good and appropriate partner, and get married. Can't do it? Don't complain about how it just can't be done under these circumstances. I have heard that argument before, and rejected it, when it was about the impossibility of retirement.
Should we dedicate ourselves to extinguishing consumerism? Or are we allowed to take ownership of our own finances and be proud of that?
There are some societal problems that we are only responsible for in our own lives. Personally, I think love and its expression is in that class.
Now, you're also talking about issues directly related to divorce, which is not marriage. For example, child custody. I think it's going to be more effective to give that separate consideration. I don't want gender to influence child custody. But you have not shown that it does. You say that "primary caregiver status" is being defined in the wrong way, but you don't establish that gender is the defining factor in that determination. Is it? Can you point to a statute that privileges gender, in place of specific care-giving functions? That's something you should expand on. I would be sad if it were the case. I want men to have the opportunity, from day one of their marriages, to establish themselves as primary (or co-equal)caregivers by ongoing action, not by gender. I don't think they must choose that role, but I want them to have the right to do so. I want you to have the right to do so. If you want your wife to pump, so you can stay home and bottle-feed the baby, I think you should seek that arrangement, and if there's a divorce, I think you should get primary custody and support. If you want to home-school, same thing. Point to the statute that says that if you do these things, you will still fail to meet the gender-based criteria of primary caregiver. That statute, if it exists, is a violation of your human rights. I have seen bizarre injustices in our society. I am open to the possibility that this one exists.
-
I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men.
Mentioning that you are a "millennial" a gazillion times throughout the thread does not designate you as the generation's spokesperson.
And you might want to check your assumptions. I too am a "millennial", and a woman who is not only more educated than my husband, but who also is the sole financial provider for our household (although I haven't seen the stats showing that women earning more is "average," even in our generation). So, I would disagree that my perspective results from "older female" non-millennial "idealism".
The self identification here in your post is hilarious. You tell me to check my assumptions and then you give me a data point of N=1 to counterpoint my argument, although I've back up my points with a multitude of data and stats. Ironic, no?
Also, my point still stands, as most of the females responding here are not in a younger generation.
I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.
...
a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
If men are so anxious to avoid the "legal trappings" of marriage, why are they more reluctant to divorce? How do you reconcile those two statements?
the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game
Assuming this "dropping out" is a thing (I'm unconvinced, but I'm not addressing that now), can you explain the cause and effect here? I don't see how the one follows from the other.
Your first statement is a complete non sequitur, as the men who have divorced and are divorcing now are from a different generation than the men now avoiding marriage. Also, the first group did their risk analysis and decided it was worth it in the beginning. Once the leap is made they want to stick it out; the two decisions are separate.
I will address your second question in another post.
I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...
... and you lost me.
Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s). But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.
You made no point here, just a throwaway statement that is glib.
Now, it is well documented that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school, do drugs more often, have higher arrest rates and have a lower lifetime income, but okay, let's just say this all can be negated by the socioeconomic factors of most single parents and single parenthood isn't a direct cause and effect for poor child outcome.
Well, it's ALSO been recently studied and documented that children of in-vitro single mothers have higher rates of depression and anxiety and approximately 1/3 of these kids have a "bad or "very bad" feeling in relation to their upbringing and mothers' decision.
I can provide all these stats to you, as I've done with other topics in this thread, but I somehow don't think you'll come back in to acknowledge them, considering you could have looked these things up yourself.
CC, to address your points in order...
1) Women have custody 70-80% of the time and BIOC relies heavily on "primary caretaker" prior to divorce. Women are disproportionately labeled as the primary caretaker, regardless of the circumstances. Also, you did not address women initiating divorce at the rate they do...
2) Please STOP with this wage gap myth, it's been debunked repeatedly. You are citing sources that have a major biased agenda. Hell, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that never married, childless women earn 96% of what men make, and the discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that women like other perks (more time off, health care plans, etc.) and do not negotiate salaries as often as men. Here you go, something from the huffington post, a bastion of feminist ideology...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472
I'll also mention, that in aggregate, who do you think bears the higher financial cost of the dating market, men or women? We both know that answer. While women love to preach equality, and God knows I'm all for it, it is still very much expected that men pay for dates or else be looked upon less favorably.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/
3) A divorced man is unhappy because he made a mistake? C'mon, not because he lost finances, his children and was probably blindsided by the divorce (many anecdotes to this in this thread alone)? Let's use Occam's Razor here...I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.
4) No, no fault divorce is extremely easy as filling out paperwork and then handling the finances and other issues later.
5) Having children without a partner is true, and while I applaud your first friend, as adopting is noble, I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do, as she is essentially playing the star role in a movie that is her life, and dammit if she isn't going going to have a baby in this movie. This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country and gender relations. Obviously I'll never really know, but as a betting man I'd place tons of money on this second friend now (or at some point) being on some type of anti-depressant/bi-polar/anxiety medication.
And yes, I basically debunked the article about men being happier in marriage. Of course the benefits of a happy marriage make men happier and healthier. That's essentially what the article said, and I'm not debating that "duh" logic. What I'm saying, and what the article basically said, is that divorced men, or men in unhappy marriages, are significantly less healthy and happy than their single or cohabiting counterparts. Why is this so difficult to understand? As well, in the best case scenario, for a man just getting married, the odds of him having a happy marriage would be 40%, and probably closer to what I guessed before at 30%. 40% ain't too good in my book.
Simply put, most people, not just men, are risk averse. If I told a guy "here you go, you have to decide to get married right now if you wanna do it. You have a 40% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness better and a 60% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness worse. You wanna do it?" While I realize this is glib in it's simplicity, a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
CC, throughout your posts I've clearly noticed a bias towards you asserting your "strong, independent woman" vibe, for which I have no problem with, but please don't push a false agenda. I have no issue with women or men doing whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I believe in gender equality when it comes to education, prospects, work, etc. All I am saying is that based on actions, there are consequences, and the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game and that this will have major social/economic tolls in the coming years. Is it all the fault of women? No. Is it all the fault of men? No. But most people simply want to hear what they want to hear and place the blame on a different group without being critical of their own group.
To play it safe, and avoid getting ensnared by evil and manipulative harridans and succubi, you should never get married, have sex, or speak to a woman ever again. Better yet, don't speak to anyone ever again (who knows how wily the black female heart may be??). We all thank you in advance.
This completely missed the point and it's too funny. You must have quite the hard time getting women to go out with you.
Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women. But I'm just an idiot on the Internet, so believe what you want.
-
JK... stands for Just Kidding, right?
So, you seem to deeply, deeply want young women to want marriage. You have one theme: how concerned women should be with some men's disinterest in marriage. Here's what I take away from that. Marriage is very important to you. You are distressed that you don't see it available to you on the terms acceptable to you. You think your situation can best be improved by collective action, preferably by people who are not you, specifically by women. To this end, you hope young women can be convinced that too many men have, like you, lost interest in marriage.
Yet there are other men in this thread saying that they enjoy their marriage, or that they intend to be married to a woman they love.
Well, I'm going to turn this back on you. I challenge you to fix this problem that concerns you. What are you doing to make marriage appeal to the subset of women who currently have no interest in it?
But the better question-- do men need to collectively court women? If not, why do women need to collectively court men?
Look, if you want to strengthen marriage in our country, attract a good and appropriate partner, and get married. Can't do it? Don't complain about how it just can't be done under these circumstances. I have heard that argument before, and rejected it, when it was about the impossibility of retirement.
Should we dedicate ourselves to extinguishing consumerism? Or are we allowed to take ownership of our own finances and be proud of that?
There are some societal problems that we are only responsible for in our own lives. Personally, I think love and its expression is in that class.
Now, you're also talking about issues directly related to divorce, which is not marriage. For example, child custody. I think it's going to be more effective to give that separate consideration. I don't want gender to influence child custody. But you have not shown that it does. You say that "primary caregiver status" is being defined in the wrong way, but you don't establish that gender is the defining factor in that determination. Is it? Can you point to a statute that privileges gender, in place of specific care-giving functions? That's something you should expand on. I would be sad if it were the case. I want men to have the opportunity, from day one of their marriages, to establish themselves as primary (or co-equal)caregivers by ongoing action, not by gender. I don't think they must choose that role, but I want them to have the right to do so. I want you to have the right to do so. If you want your wife to pump, so you can stay home and bottle-feed the baby, I think you should seek that arrangement, and if there's a divorce, I think you should get primary custody and support. If you want to home-school, same thing. Point to the statute that says that if you do these things, you will still fail to meet the gender-based criteria of primary caregiver. That statute, if it exists, is a violation of your human rights. I have seen bizarre injustices in our society. I am open to the possibility that this one exists.
First off, I don't really want anything, I'm just stating things the way they are. As well, it's documented that younger women already want marriage more than young men; the issue is that most people don't know why this is, or they simply don't care bc they think it won't affect them, so your first question doesn't quite make sense.
As for your next question, many men have no interest in traditionally courting women anymore, nor should they because they don't need to, and most women have no interest, nor any idea how, to court men.
As far as finding a partner, my answer is two fold and binary. Many men actually can't do it for various reasons, and there are many men who can, including myself, but they have no incentive to. The latter point seems to drive a lot of women crazy, hence all the "man up" and anti-Peter pan campaigns recently seen in mainstream media. Many of the current most marriageable men do not want to marry, or will marry later in life to someone younger on their own terms.
-
First off, I don't really want anything, I'm just stating things the way they are. As well, it's documented that younger women already want marriage more than young men; the issue is that most people don't know why this is, or they simply don't care bc they think it won't affect them, so your first question doesn't quite make sense.
As for your next question, many men have no interest in traditionally courting women anymore, nor should they because they don't need to, and most women have no interest, nor any idea how, to court men.
As far as finding a partner, my answer is two fold and binary. Many men actually can't do it for various reasons, and there are many men who can, including myself, but they have no incentive to. The latter point seems to drive a lot of women crazy, hence all the "man up" and anti-Peter pan campaigns recently seen in mainstream media. Many of the current most marriageable men do not want to marry, or will marry later in life to someone younger on their own terms.
Yes, and that's OK. By definition, those men aren't "most marriageable;" they're not even seeking. Later in life they will find many, many other men competing for fewer women, from what older men have told me.* So they will not be "most marriageable" at that point either. And it's OK. If they really wanted marriage, they would have made it a priority. Likewise, older men with inadequate retirement accounts and flashy cars did not really, really want retirement more than consumer goods-- or they would have made it a priority. That's fine, they're all rounding out society, which they say takes all sorts.
I am curious, what about the equality you see for millenials? How would divorce be a substantial cost to men under those circumstances? I doubt men would suffer economically from finding a successful young wife who out-earns them (if these women exist in roaming hordes whose great masses darken the plains of the marriage market, as you posit). I also wonder why these young women would seek older partners who had earned so much less for so many years? Won't a lot of men suffer economically by delaying marriage, if these economic trends are true? Doesn't all of this make marriage a matter of vital, desperate importance to a young man's financial wellbeing? Simply because you, as a mustachian high earner, will be in good financial shape in later life does not mean that most men will be.
I really doubt your premise here-- that woman are becoming economically advantaged over men, but men can only lose economically by marrying.
*Where are the women going? I don't know, but men claim they're just not there. And women claim the reverse.
-
I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...
... and you lost me.
Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s). But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.
You made no point here, just a throwaway statement that is glib.
I suppose I didn't communicate it as well as I could have, so I'll try again.
My points are:
* You're being a jerk about CC's friend. To say that this single person considering IVF is "mentally unstable" and about to do the "most narcissistic thing a woman could do" is rather rude. It also shows a lack of imagination about the scale of potential narcissistic acts. If you simply had an opinion about single people doing IVF, then fine, but your statement was personal and hyperbolic beyond necessity.
* Because of that, and in particular the hyperbole, I can't grant your other arguments as much credence as I had done before. That's why "you lost me".
So I'm not trying to make a point about women, divorce, IVF, or single-parenting. I'm giving you feedback that your communication style has caused me to no longer be interested in your arguments on this topic. You probably don't care about me personally, and that's fine, there's no reason you should. But since you're continuing the debate on the thread, I assume you do care for the opinions of the forum in general, and I suspect I'm not the only person who has a negative reaction to your style.
-
jka468, here is a list of statements by you:
-outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?
-I actually believe in marriage and the fundamentals behind the union, but a certain faction of this country has completely disincentivized it.
-given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?
-You would think that [women earning high salaries] would give men incentive to marry by your logic, but nope, not happening.
-Everyone, no matter what they do, is doing something based on incentives. It's clear to me that marriage has lost much of it's incentive for men.
-the MOST marriageable men, based on female standards (which are some particular mix of good looking, financially secure, educated, tall, well built, intelligent, motivated, etc.) have the LEAST incentive to marry these days.
-I just think the incentives for marriage, especially for men, are simply out of whack in these times for a variety of reasons.
-there are many men who can [find a partner], including myself, but they have no incentive to.
You sure love saying that young men don't have an incentive to marry. But you have literally never said why. What are these "incentives" that used to exist and no longer do? Spell it out.
-
This thread is reminding me of those forum threads where people argue whether living in the city is better than living in the country (or the burbs) or being childless is better than having kids, or renting is better than owning a house. You know what? Maybe there is no "one right answer" that applies or fits everyone. I just think it is a sign of "youth" someone trying to argue, for everyone else, why A is better than B when maybe never even or experiencing B, who feels, at a certain age they know all the answers (while people older than they chuckle to themselves). In this forum there have been numerous anecdotes of people being happily married, or having divorces that did not end in financial destruction, but yet one poster is selectively ignoring all the positives and only seeing the negatives.
Speaking as an "old fogey" in her 40's, I work on a study that deals with life stages, and interviewing people at the end of their life. What do these men talk about (veterans)? The number one thing is their relationships and their happiness and satisfaction regarding their marriage (and also kids) with career being far second. And the people who did have divorces or cheated, the regrets were not that they married, but that they didn't try harder or they messed up . Being close to death kind of puts some things in focus and other things less so. I guess you could argue we interviewed the "wrong people" because they were not ultra wealthy (though many had successful careers).
It all has to come down to values. If you see no value in marriage, then probably there is resulting no value. It is what you put in. You can't act completely individualistically in a marriage because there has to be compromises. Ironically there is rewards and satisfaction in this, as well as raising a family, being non self-based. If you tell me to list them I can't because it all gets into mystical stuff like the meaning of life that's pretty hard to quantify. If all you are trying to do is add or subtract the $ signs to decide which way to go, then you are missing the forest for the trees. Yep there are particular people I would say, yeah marriage is not for them, or that person should not have kids. But to make sweeping generalizations for entire genders or generations, well that goes against free choice.
If you ask me if I was for or against marriage, I'd say it depends. It depends on who I am getting married to! You don't get married in a global sense, but to one person and also to a lesser extent to their family. It only has to work between those two individuals, however they work out what marriage means to them.
-
a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get ... family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
Can you please explain exactly how men (or women) can get family without the legal trappings of marriage?
In Australia, once you lived with a partner under the same roof for approximately 2 years, you are considered de facto married, for all legal purposes. Makes almost no difference that you didn't bother to sign the marriage contract.
-
However, when he heard what we wanted, he almost fell out of his chair laughing. He finally sputtered out, "What? You are going to say that you get the nothing you entered the marriage with and he gets the nothing he entered with? You don't need a pre-nup! You need a budget."
My prenup specifically says that I keep the cat. ;)
She's dead now... I guess I'll have to go check the wording to see if it applies to post-nuptual cats.
LOL! Perhaps you will need a cat therapist and a judge to determine the best environment for your post-nuptial cats. I am reasonably sure that there are some municipalities that would be able to provide the necessary professionals. :)
-
a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get ... family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.
Can you please explain exactly how men (or women) can get family without the legal trappings of marriage?
In Australia, once you lived with a partner under the same roof for approximately 2 years, you are considered de facto married, for all legal purposes. Makes almost no difference that you didn't bother to sign the marriage contract.
I think that in most (all?) states in the USA there is no common law marriage. So there are no "legal trappings" for 2 people living together unless they own property or have kids. Then the property or child support/custody laws take effect, not the marriage laws. However in some long term non-marriage unions, people have sued for support and won citing that they, in effect, lived as a spouse and were entitled to property and support. That is rare though so living together as a romantic couple is legally akin to being roommates rather than spouses usually.
-
So reading this thread kind of makes me surprised my husband actually wanted to get married. His ex wife took him to the CLEANERS, took the car, racked up 10's of thousands on credit cards, he had to pay her lawyer, she took everything, even the curtain rods and toilet paper holders, from their apartment and left him with one box of stuff. He was husband 2, she was already engaged to husband three when she told him she wanted a divorce, they were only married 2.5 years, and had only known each other 3.5 years. She remarried husband three a week after the divorce was final. She STILL calls to ask for money and we've had to go to court numerous times because she chose to fight the divorce decree over things like his pension (after the decree was finalized), her and 4th (she's only 34 mind you) husband are, I kid you not, over 200k in CONSUMER debt (no mortgage in there...throw in an extra 130k for the mortgage). She REFUSES to work, she's got a couple of kids, by a couple of different guys, both of them are school aged. EVERY time we go to court we are forced to pay her lawyers fees, as well as ours, because she "doesn't have the ability to pay". She hasn't gotten anything she's fought for yet, but it's still money down the drain.
Sorry, but as a woman, I am with you guys. If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY. You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home. Your spouse paid to feed you, clothe you, shelter you, entertain you, take you on vacation etc. You essentially received a salary for doing your housework and kid raising. Alimony needs to be abolished FULLY. We put off having kids until we were wealthy enough, why? because in the event of one of us deciding to stay at home (me), I wanted both our butts to be covered in the event of a divorce where splitting the assets (we both make decent money) would allow both of us to pay our bills while job hunting. Maybe we need to do a better job of educating people on family planning.
-
If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY. You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home.
I don't agree with your no alimony standpoint, but I do agree that there should be limits on alimony. The working spouse isn't tricked into having a SAHP at home. That's usually a mutual decision. Often, it's planned well in advance of the birth of children. With that in mind, it's unreasonable to expect the SAHP to immediately jump into the workforce.
I personally think that 5 years of alimony should be the hard limit for working-aged adults. Enough to get a 4-year degree and find their footing. Adults who have a work history and education should get less - 1 year. More lenient rules for the over 65-crowd with lengthy marriages - because if one spouse decides to support another one for 30+ years, it's too late to pull that rug out.
But I'm with you in spirit. The idea of alimony is insulting to those of us who choose to earn an income. I don't understand how people don't have enough pride to stop leeching off their former spouse. Leave them alone, you're not married anymore. Own your choices and move on.
-
So reading this thread kind of makes me surprised my husband actually wanted to get married. His ex wife took him to the CLEANERS, took the car, racked up 10's of thousands on credit cards, he had to pay her lawyer, she took everything, even the curtain rods and toilet paper holders, from their apartment and left him with one box of stuff. He was husband 2, she was already engaged to husband three when she told him she wanted a divorce, they were only married 2.5 years, and had only known each other 3.5 years. She remarried husband three a week after the divorce was final. She STILL calls to ask for money and we've had to go to court numerous times because she chose to fight the divorce decree over things like his pension (after the decree was finalized), her and 4th (she's only 34 mind you) husband are, I kid you not, over 200k in CONSUMER debt (no mortgage in there...throw in an extra 130k for the mortgage). She REFUSES to work, she's got a couple of kids, by a couple of different guys, both of them are school aged. EVERY time we go to court we are forced to pay her lawyers fees, as well as ours, because she "doesn't have the ability to pay". She hasn't gotten anything she's fought for yet, but it's still money down the drain.
Sorry, but as a woman, I am with you guys. If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY. You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home. Your spouse paid to feed you, clothe you, shelter you, entertain you, take you on vacation etc. You essentially received a salary for doing your housework and kid raising. Alimony needs to be abolished FULLY. We put off having kids until we were wealthy enough, why? because in the event of one of us deciding to stay at home (me), I wanted both our butts to be covered in the event of a divorce where splitting the assets (we both make decent money) would allow both of us to pay our bills while job hunting. Maybe we need to do a better job of educating people on family planning.
Your husband's ex sounds horrible.
Completely agree with you about alimony. Unfortunately this is not the reality we live in. Doubtful it will ever change towards a more balanced practice. I wish we had mandatory family testing, finances and planning requirements before people had a child.
-
Oh trust me, she is a wretched woman, my husband readily admits he was thinking with the wrong head on that one but thankfully she found husband number 3 (while he was deployed, she's pretty much a base ho) before she could do too much damage thankfully. We just scratch our heads into how she keeps finding guys to marry her when she is such a wreck, I mean seriously...wouldn't you say no to an idea of marriage knowing you are going to be the fourth husband prior to age 32?
The only plus is that he didn't have to pay her alimony lol. Frankly I think that whole alimony system is archaic, even temporary alimony. If you were a SAHP, you get child support and half the assets, that should be enough to cover you "getting back on your feet". Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them. You see this a lot sadly in the military. When married you received a salary of in kind benefits, you do not deserve continued life time payment for that. It's like military pensions, I think splitting them for life, regardless of remarriage status, is abhorrent. Why should said soldier pay half his pension to someone for 40 years, to whom they were only married 5-10? My husband and I have two agreements, 1. I will NEVER go after his pension and 2. I will never go for alimony because I will never stop working until FIRE.
-
Frankly I think that whole alimony system is archaic, even temporary alimony. If you were a SAHP, you get child support and half the assets, that should be enough to cover you "getting back on your feet". Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.
Luckily there is often a large middle area between nothing for the SAHP (who needs to get a job with a limited/minimal resume after not having had one for X years, and who lost out on that same X years of career progression and raises) and bankruptcy for the working parent. It's just getting laws to find the appropriate balance that's flexible for a variety of situations. The vast majority of the time the parents agreed together for one to stay home - it wasn't inflicted on them. (Note: I do see there is a real issue when one parent unilaterally forces the issue of staying home. I'm not sure how that one can be resolved, shy of suggesting someone get divorced if one parent is imposing their wishes in such a manner on the other, before alimony need can be established.)
And child support is not for the parent. Children cost money to feed, clothe and shelter (even if a mustachian can do all for cheaper than average). It irks me to see the attitude that it's for the parent on both sides of the aisle (the giving and receiving parent).
-
. Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.
You are assuming that the SAHP is a woman...not necessarily the case.
And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential. By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off. Finding a comparable job as the one left (a well paying skilled position), with the gap in work history, will probably take time, and possibly additional schooling. Since my spouse chose to SAH for the benefit of our entire family (including me), it is only fair that I assume partial responsibility for the burden that this will create if we divorced.
This is especially true for military families, where so much is required of the spouse married to the person in the military. Often these spouses are uprooted every 3 three years from areas where they have good jobs to move for their spouse's job to an area where it might be hard for them to find work comparable to that they left. This type of sacrifice, plus the care that a family requires while a military spouse works long hours, is in the field, etc, does mean that having a SAHP makes even more sense for those in the military, and as such, alimony for the people who often sacrifice so much to support the military spouse's career is even more "deserved."
-
Others in this thread have argued that marriage is not necessary for stable long term relationships, stable financial relationships, and stable parental relationships, and as such it is an unnecessary step and possibly more burdensome than beneficial.
… I don't really have a hang-up against the institution of marriage per se, I'm just insisting that it's a dying mechanism in the US’
Originally I assumed that was the argument you were trying to make.
Then I read:
Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women.
if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?
It is beyond easy for guys like me to date multiple women, obtain casual sex/a short-term gf/a long-term gf or any combination of the three, and while it might not be as easy for other guys, it's not exactly hard anymore.
Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate, so I decided to read the article you said summed up your feelings.
I waded through the War on Men article you linked to (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc)). I think it’s odd that in a thread complaining about alimony, and how terrible men have it financially in a divorce, you link to an article that concludes that women should just let men be manly and ‘provide for and protect their families’ and then plenty of men would want to get married. You say you don't agree with everything, so I'll assume that's one of the points. However, the whole article basically reads: millennial men don't want to get married because feminists.
Unfortunately, the statistic used at the start of the article, isn’t even a measurement of the number of millennial men who say they would like to get married. The Pew report found that ‘Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults (<30 years)’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/) and 70% of 18-29 year olds who are unmarried and do not currently have children want to get married.’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/)
The statistic has to do with a survey asking about the importance of certain goals. This survey does not offer information on the marital status of those polled (so individuals ranking it as important may be married or single). Women are more likely to rank it as ‘one of the most important things in their lives’ but the report does not clarify if the ‘important, but not the most important’ thing category closes the gap, and does not specifically address the 'do you want to get married one day' question.
Another interesting fact I found, divorced men are almost twice as likely as divorced women to say they want to marry again; and while mens' responses are divided pretty evenly between yes no and not sure; over half of divorced women say they would never marry again. Makes you really question the assertion that marriage is a worse deal for men. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/)
-
Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate
Yeah, this guy hasn't been back since I pressed him on exactly this point. Clearly he has the courage of his MRA convictions.
-
And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential. By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off. ... This is especially true for military families...
I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.
As a comparison, if I go to work for a Not-for-profit that I believe in for $0/a year and my husband supports me because he wants me to be happy (and he believes in the cause too), and then years later we get divorced. Do I really have the right to demand alimony to compensate me for my lost earning potential?
There's this idea that Working Spouse needs to compensate SAHS because WS received something (free childcare, career support, etc) from the SAHS, whereas the SAHS received nothing in exchange. That's fundamentally untrue. SAHS, in essence, received a wage that allowed her/him to have a home, food, clothing, discretionary spending and possibly to build assets in exchange for doing a job that she/he wanted and found fulfilling. It's too bad that this job doesn't qualify SAHS for anything else and no one other than one specific employer would want to hire SAHS, but that's true of many career tracks.
As mentioned previously, my viewpoint is not so extreme as to advocate that the SAHS pension plan should be that they get turned out into the street, destitute. I think that 50% of assets and some additional, limited sum for "retraining" is perfectly appropriate.
Sidenote: I have no special knowledge of military families, so I'm willing to accept that there may be additional factors that make them an exception.
-
Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate
Yeah, this guy hasn't been back since I pressed him on exactly this point. Clearly he has the courage of his MRA convictions.
Why buy the cow is certainly one point in my reasoning, but not the sole one at all, and this ideology, however true, will most likely get me attacked on these boards so whatever. Anyways, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't much matter what points I make and what reasoning I give; people have their own world view and I'm not going to change that. Honestly, if one is 40+yo or an exception to the rule I completely understand why my ideas are unsettling, and why these ideas won't matter personally since it has no direct affect on one's life. I talk of ideas in a macro sense, and it seems difficult for many people to seperate their micro-view from the macro persepctive.
All I can say is that there is a strong minority of men who think like me, and a small minority of women who understand these things, and time will tell what happens. In another generation or two (20-40 years) marriage will either be on the brink of irrelevance outside of a few traditionalist pockets or it won't, but if I'm correct and it is, it will have major major social and economic consequences for the US. People will then have 1000 and 1 theories as to why this is the case, but they won't recogize that a number of people saw it coming.
Also, Cressida, I am not an MRA and never claimed to be, and I'll leave the snarky comments for you to pollute the thread with. I'm an activist for myself solely and I happen to view things in a certain light.
-
Others in this thread have argued that marriage is not necessary for stable long term relationships, stable financial relationships, and stable parental relationships, and as such it is an unnecessary step and possibly more burdensome than beneficial.
… I don't really have a hang-up against the institution of marriage per se, I'm just insisting that it's a dying mechanism in the US’
Originally I assumed that was the argument you were trying to make.
Then I read:
Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women.
if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.
Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?
It is beyond easy for guys like me to date multiple women, obtain casual sex/a short-term gf/a long-term gf or any combination of the three, and while it might not be as easy for other guys, it's not exactly hard anymore.
Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate, so I decided to read the article you said summed up your feelings.
I waded through the War on Men article you linked to (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc)). I think it’s odd that in a thread complaining about alimony, and how terrible men have it financially in a divorce, you link to an article that concludes that women should just let men be manly and ‘provide for and protect their families’ and then plenty of men would want to get married. You say you don't agree with everything, so I'll assume that's one of the points. However, the whole article basically reads: millennial men don't want to get married because feminists.
Unfortunately, the statistic used at the start of the article, isn’t even a measurement of the number of millennial men who say they would like to get married. The Pew report found that ‘Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults (<30 years)’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/) and 70% of 18-29 year olds who are unmarried and do not currently have children want to get married.’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/)
The statistic has to do with a survey asking about the importance of certain goals. This survey does not offer information on the marital status of those polled (so individuals ranking it as important may be married or single). Women are more likely to rank it as ‘one of the most important things in their lives’ but the report does not clarify if the ‘important, but not the most important’ thing category closes the gap, and does not specifically address the 'do you want to get married one day' question.
Another interesting fact I found, divorced men are almost twice as likely as divorced women to say they want to marry again; and while mens' responses are divided pretty evenly between yes no and not sure; over half of divorced women say they would never marry again. Makes you really question the assertion that marriage is a worse deal for men. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/)
Good doctor, what I can say to your points is that many men ideally do want to get married, under the correct circumstances, but those circumstances are increasingly difficult to find. Hence I learned something a long time ago; disregard what people say and pay attention to what they do.
-
I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.
It really does not assume that the SAHP does not receive a benefit from SAH. It assumes that the other spouse *also* receives a benefit, and as such, the burden of decreased earning potential is not the SAHP's alone to bear. The idea that the ability for one to SAH and take care of a shared young child all day, take care of more housework, etc is some kind of gift from the other spouse really does not sit right with me. It's a decision that the couple makes together, and they then should both should share any risks that go along with their family's benefits. IME, having a SAH spouse is a *huge* benefit to a working parent (eg., when I'm working FT we don't have to do housework or errands on weekends, I don't have to take off of work for a sick child, I come home to a home-cooked dinner each night, etc). So, while DH has a pretty nice life b/c he SAH, so do I.
As mentioned previously, my viewpoint is not so extreme as to advocate that the SAHS pension plan should be that they get turned out into the street, destitute. I think that 50% of assets and some additional, limited sum for "retraining" is perfectly appropriate.
Then we are in agreement.
-
In another generation or two (20-40 years) marriage will either be on the brink of irrelevance outside of a few traditionalist pockets or it won't, but if I'm correct and it is, it will have major major social and economic consequences for the US. People will then have 1000 and 1 theories as to why this is the case, but they won't recogize that a number of people saw it coming.
If marriage dies out because individuals are better off socially, and financially by not getting married, I’m not sure how that will then be bad for society and the economy. Sure there will be major changes, but if it is because everyone made a choice to be better off, I’m not sure why we should be afraid of that.
With all your talk about the loss of incentive in marriage, I don’t think marriage has gotten riskier or less rewarding in the last 50 years. There was never a guarantee that you would have a happy marriage, or that your financial footing would be secure. What has changed is that the social and economic risks of remaining unmarried have lessened. This is true for both men and women.
Good doctor, what I can say to your points is that many men ideally do want to get married, under the correct circumstances, but those circumstances are increasingly difficult to find.
Crssida and I are just trying to figure out what you think those circumstances are.
Hence I learned something a long time ago; disregard what people say and pay attention to what they do.
This is why I’m going to disregard your statements that you love women and respect the institute of marriage, and base my assumptions on your stated activity of taking advantage of a new social order (dates, companionship, sex on demand) while simultaneously bemoaning the downfall of traditional societal mores.
-
. Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.
You are assuming that the SAHP is a woman...not necessarily the case.
And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential. By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off. Finding a comparable job as the one left (a well paying skilled position), with the gap in work history, will probably take time, and possibly additional schooling. Since my spouse chose to SAH for the benefit of our entire family (including me), it is only fair that I assume partial responsibility for the burden that this will create if we divorced.
This is especially true for military families, where so much is required of the spouse married to the person in the military. Often these spouses are uprooted every 3 three years from areas where they have good jobs to move for their spouse's job to an area where it might be hard for them to find work comparable to that they left. This type of sacrifice, plus the care that a family requires while a military spouse works long hours, is in the field, etc, does mean that having a SAHP makes even more sense for those in the military, and as such, alimony for the people who often sacrifice so much to support the military spouse's career is even more "deserved."
Have to agree with you. The book "Lean In" by Sheryl Sandberg highlights the problem that stay-at-home parents have in terms of halting their earning potential by leaving the workforce. It's a big sacrifice and should be compensated.
-
This is why I’m going to disregard your statements that you love women and respect the institute of marriage, and base my assumptions on your stated activity of taking advantage of a new social order (dates, companionship, sex on demand) while simultaneously bemoaning the downfall of traditional societal mores.
I never once stated I was a saint or on moral high ground. Decrying an idea while taking advantage of the consequences, while morally suspect, do not make the facts less poignant. Remember, I did not choose or create this new order, I am simply an informed byproduct of it.
-
Decrying an idea while taking advantage of the consequences, while morally suspect, do not make the facts less poignant. Remember, I did not choose or create this new order, I am simply an informed byproduct of it.
I don't find any of the facts you've mentioned particularly poignant. You say marriage doesn't offer any benefits, yet seem to think everyone should be really disappointed that you (millennial men) don't want to get married as much as previous generations. I'm not sure why it's supposed to be touching that you are forgoing an institution you think doesn't benefit you. We're all a little iconoclastic on this forum, right?
You seem to have a sentimentalized vision of how you should feel about an institution you've never experienced, and you think women in society owe some sort of explanation for your lack of idealistic feelings about marriage. I don't see you offering any evidence that the decline will be more injurious to women than to men as a whole, or that marriage is more beneficial for women than men. There was some hand-waving about custody issues, but I don't see how not being married would be beneficial to men in the case of custody disputes or child support calculations.
Actions may speak louder than words, but since 70% of young people say they want to marry, and by the same survey it is estimated that 75% will some day marry, I don't really see a discrepancy.
And I am still truly curious about what conditions you would consider optimal for marriage in your case. A pre-nup with custody and alimony spelled out before hand? A woman who refused to have sex without marriage, (would all other women have to stop, too)? Better tax incentives and health bonuses? Living in a position where only the man could issue the divorce? Or only the higher earner? The guarantee that it will never end and your spouse will be faithful?
-
There's this idea that Working Spouse needs to compensate SAHS because WS received something (free childcare, career support, etc) from the SAHS, whereas the SAHS received nothing in exchange. That's fundamentally untrue. SAHS, in essence, received a wage that allowed her/him to have a home, food, clothing, discretionary spending and possibly to build assets in exchange for doing a job that she/he wanted and found fulfilling. It's too bad that this job doesn't qualify SAHS for anything else and no one other than one specific employer would want to hire SAHS, but that's true of many career tracks.
Ah, I think this is where the disconnect is. I agree with Emilyngh. My understanding (based on studying family law) is that alimony is not meant to compensate for past efforts (that's the splitting the marital pot of assets/liabilities) but rather to compensate for how those prior choices disproportionately negatively impact the career/standard of living for one partner going forward. Both agreed and received benefits of one staying home, so both should share some of the risks of it.
If one partner stays home for 2 kids just until they reach first grade (let’s assume the kids are the standard 2-3 years apart), that’s about 9 years out of the workforce. That’s quite a few raises, promotions missed that can’t really be caught up on. And don’t forget the challenge of getting a job when you’ve been out of the workforce for almost 10 years, so it could take another year to find a job. (I lost my job a few years ago due the recession and it took me 2 years to find full-time employment in my field again, at a substantially reduced pay.)
That’s why I believe in alimony – but for a limited time (more than just a short retraining you propose). (The exception being long-term marriages.) Mass does this reasonably well I think, limiting max alimony to a percent of the years married with the percent increasing based on the years married. 0-5 is 50% of marriage length I think, 5-10 60%, etc. until you reach 20 years when it become judicial discretion. (And that’s a max, it could be less.) To me, that shares the “risk” between the two parties in a way that no alimony or permanent alimony does not. It encourages the SAHS to get a job and career (although they will always be penalized in terms of career for the missing years when they were out of the workforce so that’s their not insubstantial burden in the deal), and supports/helps them to do so, without saying tough luck, guess you shouldn’t have trusted your partner when s/he said stay home, take care of kids/family crap so the working partner can concentrate on their career. That all said, I am starting to realize that there are enough people that make these promises to their partner but don’t really mean them, that before I would ever agree to stay at home with kids I would want a post-nup to protect myself.
Sidenote: I have no special knowledge of military families, so I'm willing to accept that there may be additional factors that make them an exception.
Re military, my dad was a Coast Guard officer. We moved every 2-3 years. Pre-kids, my mom was a PE teacher (two masters in Physical Education). There are numerous challenge for the military spouse:
- Finding a job in advance of the move as you can’t really fly across the country easily for an interview (someone needs to coordinate the move and take care of the kids when the other is out at sea…and dad was captain of a ship 4 times, serving on a ship more than that), nor can you be available immediately if you interview a few months before the move.
- Jobs aren’t available when the military tells you to move. Often its in late summer, when all of the teacher jobs have been filled.
- Needing to get new (teaching or other) credentials in these various states.
- Needing to unpack the house/settle in first anyways – as the military person is often working long hours in the new job initially.
- Finding an employer to hire you given you’ll move again in a few years (hard to hide military on the resume – on MY resume as a kid of a military parent, it was even obvious), as they want someone that will stay.
- You miss out on promotions (why promote if you are leaving in a year) and career progression.
- At least for teachers, you miss out on one huge perk of a pension. For other jobs, you often miss out on retirement vesting (which often have anywhere from 1 yr to 5 year vesting schedules).
- And, don’t forget, teachers are everywhere, but not every career is. I work in health care law which is great in Boston, and I could easily be in NY, DC, SF, or to a lesser degree Chicago. Moving outside those locations makes it harder to get a rewarding career in that field, but the military doesn’t care about what states/cities are best for your spouse’s career.
So my mom effectively gave up her career. She coached our gymnastics (she used to coach at the CG academy) in exchange for free lessons for us, and later subbed some when we were older.
-
I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.
It really does not assume that the SAHP does not receive a benefit from SAH. It assumes that the other spouse *also* receives a benefit, and as such, the burden of decreased earning potential is not the SAHP's alone to bear. The idea that the ability for one to SAH and take care of a shared young child all day, take care of more housework, etc is some kind of gift from the other spouse really does not sit right with me. It's a decision that the couple makes together, and they then should both should share any risks that go along with their family's benefits. IME, having a SAH spouse is a *huge* benefit to a working parent (eg., when I'm working FT we don't have to do housework or errands on weekends, I don't have to take off of work for a sick child, I come home to a home-cooked dinner each night, etc). So, while DH has a pretty nice life b/c he SAH, so do I.
^ This. While it was the SAH's free choice to not work, it was also a joint and mutual decision made by the couple for the benefit of their family and/or their marriage. Alimony (i.e. spousal support) isn't to "pay back" the SAH or lower earning spouse for the job they did to support the working spouse and family while married, it is to help support them until they can get back on their feet after years, maybe decades, of being out of the work force or in low income jobs. This may be the case for both a SAHP as well as a childless "trailing spouse" who gives up their career, and current as well as future earnings potential, to follow their spouse on constant transfers in order to support the spouse's career. This is a very common thing for spouses of military members. These spouses do it (be a SAHP or a trailing spouse) for the betterment of the couple, the marriage and the family. I was in the Coast Guard and was transferred every couple of years - often every year - often to fairly remote places with no job opportunities for my spouse. He was also in the CG so no biggie. But If he had given up his career and chosen to follow me for the sake of our marriage for 20 or so years that is the average military career, I assume it's implied that, if SHTF and we divorce, I would continue supporting him financially until he was back to being employed at a living wage. Alimony shouldn't last forever unless the spouse can not ever earn a living and be self-supporting (or re-marry someone who supports them), but if the couple jointly makes the decision for one spouse to give up their career so they can be together, or to give up their career so they can be a SAHP, then yes, spouse support is justified.
Now after saying that - I will admit that, since I divorced, financial reasons are probably one of the main reason I won't remarry. Mainly because every guy I have met is in deep debt and very unmustachian.
-
Re military, my dad was a Coast Guard officer. We moved every 2-3 years. Pre-kids, my mom was a PE teacher (two masters in Physical Education). There are numerous challenge for the military spouse:
- Finding a job in advance of the move as you can’t really fly across the country easily for an interview (someone needs to coordinate the move and take care of the kids when the other is out at sea…and dad was captain of a ship 4 times, serving on a ship more than that), nor can you be available immediately if you interview a few months before the move.
- Jobs aren’t available when the military tells you to move. Often its in late summer, when all of the teacher jobs have been filled.
- Needing to get new (teaching or other) credentials in these various states.
- Needing to unpack the house/settle in first anyways – as the military person is often working long hours in the new job initially.
- Finding an employer to hire you given you’ll move again in a few years (hard to hide military on the resume – on MY resume as a kid of a military parent, it was even obvious), as they want someone that will stay.
- You miss out on promotions (why promote if you are leaving in a year) and career progression.
- At least for teachers, you miss out on one huge perk of a pension. For other jobs, you often miss out on retirement vesting (which often have anywhere from 1 yr to 5 year vesting schedules).
- And, don’t forget, teachers are everywhere, but not every career is. I work in health care law which is great in Boston, and I could easily be in NY, DC, SF, or to a lesser degree Chicago. Moving outside those locations makes it harder to get a rewarding career in that field, but the military doesn’t care about what states/cities are best for your spouse’s career.
So my mom effectively gave up her career. She coached our gymnastics (she used to coach at the CG academy) in exchange for free lessons for us, and later subbed some when we were older.
Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)
And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.
-
Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)
And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.
:) I think it may be Dutch Harbor that dad said the Fish Library there contained (amongest the serious books) one copy of "Red Fish Blue Fish One Fish Two Fish".
Yeah, we went to Juneau, Alaska once. By AK standards, it was a big city with about 25,000 when I was there. We almost went to Germany instead of Alaska that tour.
-
Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)
And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.
:) I think it may be Dutch Harbor that dad said the Fish Library there contained (amongest the serious books) one copy of "Red Fish Blue Fish One Fish Two Fish".
Yeah, we went to Juneau, Alaska once. By AK standards, it was a big city with about 25,000 when I was there. We almost went to Germany instead of Alaska that tour.
Ha! I can see that. I was in Cordova, AK and I think the population is a few hundred - not counting the seasonal "slimers" - i.e. cannery workers. Not sure if your Dad was in during the days of the Loran Stations but THOSE were some remote duty places (middle of the Austrailian Outback, French Frigate Shoals, and a ton of similar places all over the world.
-
Emily, Spartana. My husband is military, career at that...we move...a LOT. I can with 100% certainty tell you that I have NOT had an issue with employment. Is it difficult to find a new job every time we move...sometimes, do I always find one..YES, in fact I outearn my military husband. Why is it not an issue? Because I don't let it be.
If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there. There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP. People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills. If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?
-
Emily, Spartana. My husband is military, career at that...we move...a LOT. I can with 100% certainty tell you that I have NOT had an issue with employment. Is it difficult to find a new job every time we move...sometimes, do I always find one..YES, in fact I outearn my military husband. Why is it not an issue? Because I don't let it be.
If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there. There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP. People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills. If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?
Well I respectfully disagree. I consider it a joint decision made by the couple together - with each having to bear the responsibility to make that choice and the short and long term ramifications. I'm not a parent, and have never been a trailing spouse or had to give up my job, but hubby and I also spend years and years separated because of that. Most married couple aren't interested in doing that. That was our choice - made jointly and each accepting the ramifications of that choice. When we divorced we each walked away with retaining our separate pensions and splitting joint assets and no need for either of to pay alimony. However, if I had given up my job to follow him hither and yon and never had self-sustaining employment, and we divorced, I would expect temporary support until I was back into the work force. And if he had given up his career to follow me, I'd expect to support him until he was back in the work force.
As for military spouses finding higher level employment - well I'm not saying it isn't doable, just saying that it is often dependent on the type of work you do, how flexible it is to transfers and where you are transferred too and how long you stay in one area (or if you are willing to live apart to maintain your career). You probably had a job that was doable where ever you went - or you went to larger towns. When you are stationed somewhere hundreds of miles from the nearest town, on an island, with no roads, only a few hundred people and the only employment in town is seasonal cannery worker for minimum wage it doesn't matter how determined you are to work at a high paying job, cause that's what's available if you chose to live there.
-
Spartana, we've actually been in the situations you described, small towns, low pay etc. We GeoBach'd, which as you said, people aren't willing to do..and that is a choice they made to not further their marketable skills...the WP should not be responsible for that individual choice years in the future.
-
If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there. There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP. People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills. If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?
And on the flip side if you are the spouse of a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of having a SAH spouse....someone else is caring for your child all day and probably taking care of the majority of your housework. People are not FORCED to have a SAHP spouse, it is a choice that benefits both parties....
And as has been said many, many times here so far, a WOHP paying spousal support is *not* paying for "services rendered," but is sharing the economic burden that an ex-SAHP may have even after re-entering the work force that directly results from his time spent caring for his family with the WOH parent.
I do not pay my husband for "services" (really, barf). We have agreed for him to SAH while I work b/c it benefits our entire family. This decision *will* make it harder for him to get a job comparable to what he left if he goes back into the work force. As such, I would fully expect to pay spousal support for a reasonable length of time for him to get back rolling along. I accept this as part of our joint decision, it is only fair, and it would be better for our daughter to have her father able to have a job with a higher earning potential if he had to work.
Frankly, I detect some bitterness regarding the financial impacts of your husband's previous divorce. While I can empathize in that in addition to providing my husband with his lavish SAH life, I actually also pay his CS for my stepchild, pay for health insurance for the stepchild, will pay a decent sum for college for my stepchild, and even pay half for riding lessons for my stepchild (something I would not pay for for our shared child). But you know what? Meh, such is life. We still have a super great Mustachian life (will reach FI while I'm in my 40s), so why be bitter about it? Life is great.
-
Divorce is definitely a brutal thing on finances. My brothers wife left him after six years and despite the fact she was in school making nothing she got half his assets, most of which he had coming into the marriage. We have some long standing friends whose marriage has been a mess for awhile due to the husbands idiocy. When he decided to seek a divorce he honestly thought since he was the breadwinner and she was a SAHM he would get to keep 90% or more of the assets. Reality crashed in on him hard.
-
I am recently divorced from a 10 year marriage with a single child. My ex was a SAHM.I was always the saver (comparatively TBH) in the relationship. I chose to leave. It took 6 months to get the divorce processed.
The 6 months allowed her to drain the joint accounts, overdraw the joint checking 5-6 times in a single month, max the joint credit card (with an extra 3k added to the limit), and get an apartment that I had to pay the rent on. While I got served with papers that prevented me from using any money in the joint accounts or using the joint credit card.
In the end, I had to sell off my IRA to pay off the "joint" credit card debts and kept all remaining marital debt because I had a job and she did not. I pay alimony and child support. I have years left on both. I don't begrudge this, although I wish it were lower or that I got credit for supporting her while the divorce processed.
Here is the rub: I wanted a divorce 4 years before I finally was able to go through with it. If I had been able to do it earlier, I would have been halfway to FIRE instead of nearly restarting. If you know that divorce is what you want, earlier is better than later. I got my ex to go to college to up her earning potential for when she reentered the workforce, and it did not affect my support a single bit. Nor did the fact that I paid her for her college instead of paying off my student loans. If I could go back and do it again (financially) I would have pulled the trigger earlier.
Q: Why do divorces cost so much?
A: Because they are worth it
In the 2 years since the split, my net work has increased to the prior level. The alimony is hurting income, but I have a savings account and can pay off credit cards monthly which was a mythical situation before.
-
I am sorry you got hit like that, but I am amazed that the courts let a financial settlement like that go through. I am also wondering why you didn't tell your bank that the accounts needed approval from both account-holders for use, and get your name off the credit cards. Actually, a lot of finance people recommend each spouse have their own credit card - this was originally so that the non-working spouse would have a credit history, but it would also help in situations like this.
I have finally got my financial agreement settled with my almost-ex husband. We never had joint credit cards. We still have joint bank accounts, including a HELOC. He used the HELOC a bit for personal use, and that has all been sorted out in the settlement. Our assets and pensions have been split equitably. If we hadn't done this in mediation, it would have happened in court.
I know of another couple where they divorced at a younger age, and the husband and wife did something similar to you in terms of the wife going back to school. The husband had child support (of course, they are his kids too) but I think the alimony type support was small and short-term.
-
I am sorry you got hit like that, but I am amazed that the courts let a financial settlement like that go through. I am also wondering why you didn't tell your bank that the accounts needed approval from both account-holders for use, and get your name off the credit cards. Actually, a lot of finance people recommend each spouse have their own credit card - this was originally so that the non-working spouse would have a credit history, but it would also help in situations like this.
I could have served her papers back to stop the bleeding, but by the time things went from amiable to nuclear the damage was done. Since the accounts were joint, I had to have her permission to close most of them. Since they were an asset when we were together, if she had a solo card, I would have had less visibility and still would have had to deal with it in the divorce.
I couldn't close the joint credit card. Closing a credit card with a balance on it basically sets the credit limit on the card at zero...thus you are significantly far over the balance and in a world of hurt.
I ended up getting a card with a no fee, interest free balance transfer option. This held the balance of the consumer debt while I got the ex's permission to sell the IRA to cover it (did I mention that if she had been a jerk about this, she could have gotten half the IRA and then I still would have had the full consumer debt?).
As soon as the word divorce was mentioned, I knew to get an account and credit card in my own name and start changing direct deposits into that area. If it were not for that I could have had one hell of a nasty few months.
In the end, I had ~35k in debt (consumer, student loan, car) and I have to pay ~$850 monthly for alimony for ~4 years. I got the newer car since I kept the loan.
She got a paid off car (older, and was her car in the marriage) and the house with loan. The house is ~20k in value over the loan, so I feel like that was worth it to me merely to not have to sell it/live there since I work an hour away from it. She feels like she got screwed over, because I still have a good job and she does not.
Life is fun, but I'm rarely bitter about it. All non student loan debt is paid off and I no longer stress about what she is buying while I'm at work. The alimony and child support roughly equal to what she was spending every month anyway so its not too deep a cut. I have less stuff but I am happier.
-
A big part of the imbalance with alimony and stay-at-home-parents is that the SAHP gains a huge advantage in custody determinations and in keeping the arrangements that were in place during the marriage going for many years after the divorce. In my case, since my SAHM ex-wife knew I wanted to actively parent my children and not just be "Disneyland Dad", she was able to use that as a weapon for more money. "You want to see the kids? It will cost you." It's a horrible thing to do, but it's reality in a lot of cases.
For example, if you have a SAHM caring for toddlers for a few years with Dad working, and then they divorce (regardless of who initiates it), the courts will keep that arrangement going for many years after the divorce, with Dad paying to keep it going against his wishes (it could be the same if the genders were reversed, but Pew Research says alimony is 98% paid by men IIRC). And why should that arrangement continue even though the marriage and family unit is completely upended? Even if Dad wants to share in custody and go back to both parents working -- tough luck. In addition to alimony, Dad will also be paying sizable child support since SAHM will have complete or primary physical custody.
I'm in the camp that alimony makes sense in many/most cases, but the formulaic approach of many jurisdictions/courts just dehumanizes people as it gets them out quickly. "You were married 10 years? Pay alimony for 5. Next!"
-
I'm surprised Unkempt Stash and some other's here didn't file for a "Legal Separation" right away and prior to filing for divorce. Hubby and I, who had a very amiable divorce and did it all ourselves, filed for one immediately because that protected us from each other's potential financial issues - spending, taxes, no liability if sued or for anything that happened after filing for separation, etc... until we were legally divorced. So if one went wild with a the CC or was sued by someone after we separated, the other spouse wasn't liable for that debt at all and was protected. This also protected any assets they would accrue from that point on even if the actual divorce took months or years.
-
Honestly, if one is 40+yo or an exception to the rule I completely understand why my ideas are unsettling
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Dude, your ideas are not "unsettling," they are trite and misguided. The sooner you realize this, the happier you will be. Have you ever met a happy MRA type?
Also, if you think you're successfully negging me by pointing out my age, let me assure you that I see through that little "trick" and it has failed to impress me.
Also, Cressida, I am not an MRA and never claimed to be, and I'll leave the snarky comments for you to pollute the thread with. I'm an activist for myself solely and I happen to view things in a certain light.
Given that you speak, without apparent irony, of "buying the cow," you clearly have MRA beliefs. So claiming that you're "not an MRA" just because you don't sit around plotting with other MRAs is just semantic obfuscation.
Anyway, you still haven't copped to your rationale for not wanting to marry, so I will continue to conclude that said rationale is indefensible. You know perfectly well that your most radical views are socially unacceptable, so you're too chicken to spell them out for us. Way to Go Your Own Way! You're so brave!
[edited for clarity and a misplaced comma]
-
Honestly, if one is 40+yo or an exception to the rule I completely understand why my ideas are unsettling
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Dude, your ideas are not "unsettling," they are trite and misguided. The sooner you realize this, the happier you will be. Have you ever met a happy MRA type?
Also, if you think you're successfully negging me by pointing out my age, let me assure you that I see through that little "trick" and it has failed to impress me.
Also, Cressida, I am not an MRA and never claimed to be, and I'll leave the snarky comments for you to pollute the thread with. I'm an activist for myself solely and I happen to view things in a certain light.
Given that you speak, without apparent irony, of "buying the cow," you clearly have MRA beliefs. So claiming that you're "not an MRA" just because you don't sit around plotting with other MRAs is just semantic obfuscation.
Anyway, you still haven't copped to your rationale for not wanting to marry, so I will continue to conclude that said rationale is indefensible. You know perfectly well that your most radical views are socially unacceptable, so you're too chicken to spell them out for us. Way to Go Your Own Way! You're so brave!
[edited for clarity and a misplaced comma]
U mad? I've actually never met a self-proclaimed MRA ever. Throughout my years though I have met many young, very like-minded white, black and asian guys who are successful in white collar jobs or other ventures, who have no problem with women and dating and are very happy overall. This can't possibly be true though, can it?
Seriously, what's the point of discussing this with you and who is "us"? You're still the only one with your panties in a wad over this. You have your views, and you try to reframe the discussion with your middle school debate team tactics, but you're intellectually out of your league. I could give you any amount of reasoning, studies, facts and/or figures and you'll just attack, unsurprisingly, with ad hominems, so I won't waste my time. Hell, just looking at a few of your old posts it's clear you have a stereotypical social-justice-warrior-equalist-"it's all just social conditioning" mindset, so we're like oil and water. Your posts paint you like a caricature of your agenda, constantly arguing with people and labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as a sexist or as having a sexist viewpoint (really, like in every 5th post you use the word 'sexist', 'sexism' or 'racist'. Are you getting paid by Google each time or something? If so, then kudos).
I've had zero problem living my life successfully and gleefully with my so-called "radical" views, as you put it, but I'm probably making that up right? Really I'm just eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew in my mom's basement as I write this. Or, maybe all of my white male privilege is what's done it for me; afterall, I do know the secret handshake and subscribe to "The Patriarchy Quarterly".
-
People are having a hard time staying on topic, and this thread has become vitriolic despite some warnings and temporary forum bans. I'm locking this one up.