If you are the main breadwinner and chose not to get married...

[HowIsItMarchAlready]

Quite a few threads at the moment about marriage, kids, and financial protection in a couple. So I wanted to ask: if you are the main breadwinner in your relationship (woman or man), and chose not to marry your DP (kids or no kids), what was the reason behind your decision? I am financially independent, have no kids, married my (wealthy) ex DH because of pensions/house, divorced him. I wish we had never married as, ultimately, the divorce cost us more than any financial advantage marriage would have brought us.

Mainly 50% of marriages fail and assets are then divided 50:50 on a divorce. I massively out earn my partner I think about 5x and to be honest there is a bit of resentment why they don't try to increase their earning potential. Most of my assets are in my pension (outside of inheritance tax). There is no benefit to me marrying providing an additional safety net to them will just make them even more reliant on me there will be no motivation to study to get a higher paying job or plan pension savings ect. Sorry I believe in personal responsibility and they need to be responsible for their future an not be relying on a partner who is increasingly resentful of having to do the financial heavy lifting marriage takes away personal responsibility into a couple's responsibility.

Agreed. I could not share 50:50 if my DP wasn't working as hard as I am. It'd feel like they are taking advantage. My sister works four days a week because she wants a day a week to indulge her hobbies; her DP basically subsidizes her. I think that's embarrassing and so entitled. We'd all like to be able to indulge our hobbies but don't expect someone else to pay for them. But then again, that's another discussion (but one of the reasons why I will never marry again).

Surely it's between your sister and her partner if he chooses to financially support her 'hobby day'? It's not like she doesn't work at all. Plus how do you know he pays for it? This arrangement doesn't effect you does it?

Sorry I believe in personal responsibility and they need to be responsible for their future an not be relying on a partner who is increasingly resentful of having to do the financial heavy lifting marriage takes away personal responsibility into a couple's responsibility

Why do you assume the higher earner will be resentful? Effectively you are saying that any relationship where two people are not equal earners is doomed to fail or that the lower earner is a failure.

Money is not the only contribution to a relationship and/or family.

Children do make a huge difference in this though - because it does change the earning potential quite a big difference.

And it isnt just financial heavylifting. DH earns 3x what I do. But guess what the kids have been off this week and I have done ALL the heavy lifting there as I do with a lot of other stuff.

Before kids we earnt the same. We have both made decisions and sacrifices to end up were we are but it was joint decision because we are a partnership

@LadyTwinkle I know my sister's DP pays because the whole family knows. It doesn't affect me, no, but I find it embarrassing that a capable adult will choose to become dependent on another just so they can indulge a hobby. I think it's horribly entitled and have lost some respect for my sister for doing that.

I am married. So are most of the people I know. The younger people less so.

However I have seen a pattern here where it seems to be acceptable for the women to refuse marriage even with children because they are the higher earners and posters are patting them on the back. What if a man was saying the same thing?

There would be complete uproar.

"I am a man earning 3 times more than my partner and we have two children. We both work but I dont want to get married because of what we would have to do if we divorced and the financial disadvantage I would be in if I agreed to marry.

AIBU?"

SIL didn't marry her DP because she was the high earner and deep down, she always knew he was a feckless little shit. She just didn't have it in her to dump him before the DC came along.

I am the high earner and I married DH quite happily because I was a) happy to share and b) knew that he'd pull his weight overall and c) he facilitated me earning that way. At the time, some people on here told me I was crazy as if we divorced he could take half and get the kids at least 50/50 but my view was then, as it is now, that that would have been fair for the three reasons above.

if the man is a SAHD or has made sacrifices because of having children then it is wrong though.

And if you move into someone's house without proper ringfencing and joint tenancy then that is on both

@HowIsItMarchAlready do they have children?

I am married and ‘did it for love’ (and also because, at that time, it was the right thing to do. I didn’t question it at the time. Probably would now).

At the time, we were earning the same in very similar jobs. Blablabla.

Then came the dcs with all the issues associated with it. Including the fact he reverted to the 1950. I had two lots of ML and was made redundant during the second one.
Suddenly, there was a discrepancy on a financial pov. And then I became ill. 15 years in im still struggling with it (and if I’m honest, probably getting worse…). That means I can’t work more than a few hours a week.

What I’ve learnt from that

• you have no idea what the future holds. A marriage offers a protection that just being together doesn’t when it comes to ill health.


• children change things a lot and depending on your wage etc… you might have to make harsh decisions such as stopping work until the dcs are at least at school (I know I did). No way I would advise any woman to have a child wo that protection of marriage.

Basically if you are a high earner so that you know having children or being chronically ill can be mitigated (by having an expensive insurance, a nanny etc…), then I think marriage is still a protection worth having.

I think that if someone doesn't get married because they're specifically concerned about the financial impact, that says something about the relationship and the individuals involved that is concerning. A friend, having got divorced (no children) and being burnt financially has told his new partner that he won't be getting married UNLESS they have children (his thinking is that if they have children then yes, it's reasonable of her to ask him to ensure she is legally protected but he's less keen to do that if they don't have DC).

I am the "breadwinner" in my house and earn about 4x what my partner does. We're not married and have no plans to marry, but not because I'm worried about my assets in case of divorce. I've always believed that a relationship has to be a partnership and we truly live joint lives. That means all our money is pooled and joint. I don't know how a relationship could survive the inequality of one partner having peanuts and the other having huge disposable income. That "yours vs mine" mentality would be a relationship killer for me, marriage or no marriage.

I also don't judge anyone who earns less than me - I've been very lucky. It's not always as clear cut as "laziness" and "not exploring their full earning potential". My partner has a much more "meaningful" job than me and my view is that my corporate soulless job pays the bills and allows him to do that. It would be sad if we both had to do a job like mine, I think it's great we can afford for him to do something that makes a positive difference in the world without needing to chase more money.

I totally get what you mean. I'm actually on the other side of this. I've been a stay at home parent all of our marriage of 12 years. It really struck me what you say about the getting educated and getting their own career etc. I feel like me and my husband are completely codependent. We have quite a large family which is our choice I suppose, but I actually feel a bit resentful that I'm not self sufficient and it makes me feel inadequate at times that I'm so reliant on my husband which obviously must put pressure on my husband too. I feel I contribute to the household in other ways with the housework and the childcare but I really am looking forward for my time to work and go after my career dreams soon. It will probably end up that in later life (I'm a bit younger than DH) that I will be working full time and my husband can cut his hours as he approaches retirement so that I can do my share.

I think it must be hard in relationships where people don't have children because there is no justification for the other person not working as hard and the idea of sharing assets must be hard. I suppose the only good thing about sharing assets when you have kids is that even if your ex gets the house, you know that it will end up being your children's inheritance anyway so it makes it feel slightly better and not like you've worked your ass off for nothing. It must be harder to accept without kids, losing all your money to an ex for nothing.

It's one day a week though. How does that make her financially dependent on her partner? She still has her own income and job. How expensive is this hobby of hers that means her partner is completely supporting her? I'm not trying to goady. I'm genuinely interested.

Wealthy you say, hmmm,.....

Why did your divorce cost so much? in your marriage 1) who had the most assets at the start? 2) who earned the most?

Surely you could have had a quick no hassle divorce each agreeing to take only what they had at the start?

Why did you marry? why were you concerned about the pension, assets and income of your wealthy ex?

Sad, cynical, selfish, cloying and boring. Your sister is still married? perhaps she got lucky, or maybe she and husband didn't marry for cynical reasons!

@Franklin12 I believe that the difference between men and women refusing to marry their partners after having children when they are the main breadwinners is that very few men become main carers for their children, give up work or even shoulder most of the burden of childrearing and/or housekeeping, so they are not generally in a comparable position to unmarried mothers that lower their earnings by going part-time or give up work completely, with the accompanying partial or total loss of economic independence, pension accruals, etc. Of course there will be exceptions, but this is the general pattern and since most men are not economically disadvantaged by marriage and children, the consequences of refusal to marry by the main breadwinner are really not the same, at all.

@Scooby5kids it’s interesting that you see your input in your family only through the lens of money.
If your username is to be believed, you’ve had 5 children? Is looking after them all not work? How much would it cost the family if you were working FT and needed someone to do all the stuff you couldn’t do (the cleaning, looking after the dcs etc etc).

Personally I hate not being financially independent but that’s because I want the freedom that comes with it (incl the impact it has on the power balance in the relationship).
But I’m not sure why anyone should aim to earn as much as their partner regardless of the work they both do. Some jobs can have big responsibilities and be rewarding Wo the huge pay check (I’m thinking working for a charity vs corporate environment). Some jobs are not well paid but still essential (eg being a nurse) etc…
Why are we still conflating how much one person earns to their character (eg less money = lazy, etc….)?

@Quartz2208 @LadyTwinkle she has a teenage son from her ex DH. Her salary is quite low so she also depends on our parents for help (always has done). Now her DP and our parents help her out. So no, her job wasn't enough to pay all the bills to start with, and now she's cut it down to four days because 'she has a right to do what she loves' one day a week. Again, I'm quite certain many of us would, but many of us would not dream of doing this unless they could finance it themselves. When I tried to bring it up with her she gets all defensive and my mum takes her side so I don't say anything now.

@Andromache77 that’s a good point.

And I think it also highlight another issue.
When men do fuck all in the marriage, aka no HW, no emotional work etc etc, it’s often accepted by women BECAUSE they are the main bread winner. So there is some sort of compensation.
When men behave that was AND their partner also massively out earn them, it looks like there is no compensation at all. Only giving from one side of the marriage.

What is so repugnant to you about dependency? as humans we are dependent upon other humans. No man is an island. No man exists outside of society, because no man would survive alone.

I am dependent upon my husband. Does this make me some useless sponger? he earns more than me. I could earn more than him if I worked full time. I cook more than him, and if he cooked, cleaned, looked after DC, did admin, paid bills, dealt with contractors and decorated the house I could work more hours. We would be exhausted, barely see each other.....but hey.......we would be equal! bollocks to that. Today.....I bought a dress with my husbands wages, its lovely. I've also cleaned the bathroom, kitchen, prepped dinner and walked the dog.

Without kids I can see the point in not getting married. But, my pension and earning potential is massively reduced because I spent years at home and then have been only PT since. Half my contribution to the marriage is not monetary. If we split I feel it's fair I get 50%.

Possibly when there are kids involved I can see the appeal of marriage but even so it seems that some people will jump at the opportunity to be a SAHP rather than going back to work as soon as it makes financial sense, usually because they want to spend time with their kids, but not thinking about the damage they are doing to their career, and independence, prospects.

I think few people do that @HowIsItMarchAlready .

What is more likely to happen is women not going back to work because

• the cost of childcare is prohibitive and they would end up, as a family, with less disposable income


• they have a dh who isn’t supportive of them working FT, aka they refuse to pull their weight. If you are on a low or medium income and can’t afford help to clean etc…, that makes the Woman’s life impossible. This is especially true of the woman hasn’t just taken ML but a longer extended leave because of costs and their dh has got used to this very nice lifestyle where he doesn’t have to lift a finger in the house.


• there is still a very strong societal pressure for women to stay home when children are young.


• Not everyone has a career, a great pension from work etc… can go back to their original line of work (eg if travel is involved etc…)

Reducing Women staying at home to being lazy or they are not thinking the right way (career prospect etc…) is a very reductive outlook.

There is a different reaction because the two constellations are far from similar but with the sexes reversed. Statistically, in the overwhelming majority of cases where wives outearn their husbands, they are still likely to contribute more time to the household than their partners. This does not tend to be the case with conventional male provider type couples, so maybe just spare us your faux outrage.

Good on your sister enjoying her life. You sound sad and lonely. Focus on yourself, maybe take up a hobby.