Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to thing a woman is over 35 earns enough to be a bread winner had no reason to marry?

126 replies

FlourishingMrs · 02/10/2016 19:25

Just wondered in this day and age, unless you aspire to be A Stay at home mum/zap rent there is no reason to marry, you could just enjoy living together with you DP and provide the happiest home for you and the kids. That way if it all goes wrong your kids are not disadvantaged. Unless one is religious of course?

OP posts:
BackforGood · 02/10/2016 21:35

What an odd OP

I'm amongst the vast majority of people, I'd have thought, who chose to marry the man I loved, because I wanted to, and he wanted to. ChocolateWombat puts it far more eloquently than I can, on the previous page, but our decision to get married was nothing to do with my earning power, his earning power, or anything else financial or legal --even though, as I get older, I realise it does give you an advantage in such matters as pension, death benefits, etc.)

MsMermaid · 02/10/2016 21:36

What legal and financial bonuses special? I haven't had any, but maybe they just haven't cropped up yet as neither of us have retired/died yet.

museumum · 02/10/2016 21:44

What does "the breadwinner" mean in this situation? She and I both work and both earn enough to be financially independent. However as we have a ds we are both financially as well as emotionally and practically responsible for it made sense to us to join all our assets in marriage before we had him.
To be honest I think if we ever split then the formality of divorce would be more thorough than if we were just cohabiting and split without any arbitration.

Original poster
FlourishingMrs · 02/10/2016 22:40

Thank you for all the comments, and the questions.

Why the number 35? Random number I know but I think I read somewhere that that's when youth stops. So at the age I would have thought tinted glasses come off and one learns that what's is lovely to have a lovely wedding it's the quality of the relationship that counts and for this a certificate does not seem to make a difference.

Also people that marry early say in their 20's and build a life and assets together deserve the assists to be split equally, however if people marry later I life last a few years and split up, on top on the emotional mess the person who worked hard/inherited assets gets to loose out financially too.

In a situation were the higher earner is woman with kids the children suffer even more from the possibility of their home being sold when said man should have just left. This could also be tricky if said woman had DC's from previous relationship.

No I am not 17 am actually devorced (very costly Devorce I must say and had to pay him a lot of money as part of the Devorce, on top of dealing with his cheating and keeping my kids sane through the process)
I am now with a lovely DP, I enjoy the fact we choose each year to be together not trapped by fear of the Devorce court. ( I think he would like to Marry as he tells everyone I am his wife, he knows my views...

The next of keen argument is a non starter as you can have power of attorney sorted. You can also change names by deed poll .

I like the inheritance tax argument that makes sense.

An earlier poster made a comment on affluent people marrying more than the not so affluent. I would be interest to hear if this is in situations of similar wealth or not?

So apart from romantic reasons and inheritance tax, is there more value to marriage I am missing?

OP posts:
SpaceDinosaur · 02/10/2016 22:46

I didn't marry DH because I aspired to be a dependant. I'm the main breadwinner.

DH and I married because disgustingly we love each other and wanted everyfecker to know it!
The commitment to each other was important for us both.
The religious ceremony was a rite of passage I felt was massively important.
We have the same surname because we want our children to have the same name as both of us.

If I die, DH gets everything no questions.

We are legally recognised as partners.

Original poster
FlourishingMrs · 02/10/2016 22:57

Thank you SpaceD, that's lovely and I am glad things have worked out for you but for some of us, the love of our lives did not honour their vows, so we you meet someone else do you ignore the previous experience when you have kids to consider or do you become more pragmatic? Who knows...

OP posts:
Beebeeeight · 02/10/2016 22:57

No one ever admits to the social pressure to marry.

It's always for individual reasons... Hmm

MrsKoala · 02/10/2016 23:05

The reason we married at the specific time we did was because DH's job was moving abroad and for me and ds1 to be able to move with him on his visa it was much much easier if we were married.

We were always planning to anyway, because i was just becoming a sahm and we were planning me to give up work to support him and have more babies so we wanted me to be financially protected, we possibly wouldn't have if i was going to continue working and had the same earning potential as him.

edwinbear · 02/10/2016 23:12

We are both high earners. At times throughout our careers I have earned more than DH, and sometimes he has earned more than me. We both owned our own homes when we met, which we sold and put the equity towards our first joint home. Various bonuses and redundancy pay outs have allowed us to pay lump sums off the mortgage, invest into pensions etc. I can honestly say I have no idea who has paid more into/off mortgages, houses or pensions. It's a team effort, through the ups and downs. And that's the point of marriage.

Original poster
FlourishingMrs · 02/10/2016 23:13

MrsKoala, I totally get the point if one party is going to sacrifice their career for their family that the other party secures them financially through marriage if that's the most efficient way, it will be silly to get pregnant without it, unless of course you would be financially worse off all things considered.

OP posts:
Ericaequites · 03/10/2016 02:21

Marriage is meant to protect the estate and children. It's the right thing to do, and makes things much simpler legally. My mother was the town bastard nearly eighty years ago. I never had children partially because I couldn't give them the advantages that come with legitimacy. I am a lesbian divorced from a transman.

TrillKitten · 03/10/2016 02:44

"That way if it all goes wrong your kids are not disadvantaged"

Because when mum and dad split up, the emotional damage done to a child is related to whether or not mum and dad had a piece of paper from the state saying they were legally a union. Yes. Hmm

Manumission · 03/10/2016 02:51

Please explain why, in the event of a split, only the DC of married parents would be 'disadvantaged' OP. I'm going quite mad trying to follow your reasoning.

burnoutbabe · 03/10/2016 07:27

Marriage doesn't appear to benefit much 2 independent people, with no kids and assets pre marriage.

Yes its all about love. But then if you split you risk losing half your assets. (that is both men and women). If you bring a lot of assets to the marriage, that is a big risk (and of course no risk to the "married at 20" crowd)

Its "worth it" towards the end for inheritance tax, but not during your life.

ChocolateWombat · 03/10/2016 07:44

Most people don't enter marriage, thinking that by doing this, when it goes wrong, they will be legally and financially protected. Whilst they may well gain those protections, for most people, those are not the key reasons to do it. Most people hope and expect their marriage to last and go into it for love and commitment reasons.
OP, as someone who is divorced, you may well see marriage differently and that's understandable. But I bet you didn't think of it in the terms you did when you were first planning to marry. It didn't work out for you, and it doesn't work out for lots of people......but it DOES work for lots of other people, both for legal and financial reasons, but also in temps of providing much happiness. Even some people who are divorced, keep re marrying, because they believe there is something special about it. It probably isn't an easy to pin down, concrete practical benefit.....but many people will tell you that being married to their spouse has made them incredibly happy.

Pineapplemilkshake · 03/10/2016 07:58

I think OP means that DC from previous relationships would be disadvantaged? So if the woman is the higher earner and has DC, then marries a man who is a lower earner and has no house etc, - if they divorce then her DC may lose out financially, e.g. If the man claims half of her assets, pension and so on

DoNotBlameMeIVotedRemain · 03/10/2016 08:16

My friend with 3 DCs wasn't married. Her (atheist) DP died and his parents took over the funeral which was religious and not what my friend wanted. No one should ever face that. :(

There are lots of benefits to marriage but this one is so extreme I had to share it.

Original poster
FlourishingMrs · 03/10/2016 08:16

Hello Manumiss, the point is in the contest of when the mum has the majority of the financial assets, when it goes wrong the DC's not only suffer the emotional trauma but my end up financially disadvantage as mum may have to pay the man in question some of the assets.

ChocolateW, I totally see your point hence my pointing out earlier that for people who gave genuinely built a life together or bring nearly the same assets it makes sense. However people have the right to make emotional decisions.

I am sure for some people the certificate makes a difference to their happiness, the order I get the more I think it's about the day to day decision to be loving and respectful to one another. I am wondering if the legal intaglements make it easier for unhealthy relationships to last longer than they should.

Obviously if it's a healthy relationship it's beautiful married or not?

OP posts:
EBearhug · 03/10/2016 08:34

There is somewhere on the CAB website which lists the legal differences between being married and just living together. I'd read that before making a decision.

Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 08:48

Do you have s link EBear because that's not true

Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 08:48

Sorry misread that

EBearhug · 03/10/2016 08:54

Also, it's different in Scotland from England and Wales - nor sure about Northern Ireland.

Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 10:15

I misread your post as there wasn't a difference between co habit ing and marriage which clearly there is. Sorry

WhiteDraig · 03/10/2016 10:47

I think if you'd said 55 woman - I'd might agree it might not be a good thing.

That not an age where children might come along - so no unexpected SAHP - and there are likely to be previous children who you might want to leave houses too instead of partners.

Still ignores other reasons to marry like love and wanting too.