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:
scarednoob · 03/10/2016 10:49

The only reason to get married is because you want to. Some do. Some don't. Most of my friends did. DP and I don't. But that's far more because I don't want a wedding without my DM than it is because I am the earner/property owner and DP is the SAHD.

Jaxhog · 03/10/2016 14:42

Some things to think about:

  • People today are way too casual about living together and having DCs. Married or not. Having children is a privilege, not a right.
  • The average life of a live-in partnership is much less than a marriage
  • Getting married gives you BOTH added security. Unless one of you is much richer than the other.
  • Getting married doesn't require a blow out expensive ceremony
  • Divorce is horrible, but then so is splitting up
  • There is no such thing as a common-law-wife. DPs have very little rights. Wives and husbands do.
Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 15:33

People today are too casual about having kids ? Unlike every other time in history where you got pregnant every time you had sex ? I think it's quite the opposite these days actually.
Marriage is another form of state/church control, be a good minion and we'll reward you with fuck all tbh but by being "in love" and getting married you'll create a nice line of income for everyone from the official licence to the lawyers when you divorce. If you refuse to partake nobody makes a penny out of you and where's the fun in that ?

scoobydooagain · 03/10/2016 15:59

The legal security of marriage is a reason why I would not marry as I want my house and assets to go to my ds not my dp and him likewise with his dc. I do think if you bring assets into a relationship it is a bit of a gamechanger (we have no plans to have children together as that would change my thinking on this).

scarednoob · 03/10/2016 16:08

I think a lot of those arguments are falling away as society catches up with reality! Unmarried parents are far more common these days; I can't believe they all split up because they aren't married! Meanwhile divorce rates keep climbing.

scarednoob · 03/10/2016 16:09

Pressed post too soon.

We're not there yet but I think the law will start to even these things out as time goes by.

KERALA1 · 03/10/2016 16:12

Inheritance tax - if you are above the IHT thresholds you are at
a disadvantage if you are not married. Several "anti marriage" clients in their late 50s been together years have quietly had registry office marriages for this reason Grin.

Not that romantic though...

Jaxhog · 03/10/2016 16:58

It's a sobering thought that a marriage lasts on average 11.3 years, but a partnership lasts an average of 3 years.

Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 17:49

Not necessarily for the right reasons though

EBearhug · 03/10/2016 18:22

The legal security of marriage is a reason why I would not marry as I want my house and assets to go to my ds not my dp and him likewise with his dc.

So just write your wills to say that. There are some countries where you can't disinherit children or spouses, but England and Wales are not among those. You should make a new will if you marry anyway, even if it's to say, everything goes to my children from my first marriage and nothing to my current spouse or any subsequent issue.

And everyone should have a will, married or single, assets or not.

Pisssssedofff · 03/10/2016 18:27

Can you not disinherit your children in Scotland ? That's interesting 🤔

EBearhug · 03/10/2016 18:30

I don't know. You might be able to. I only know that there are some differences between Scottish inheritance rules and England & Wales, but I'm not sure what the differences are.

Heatherbell1978 · 03/10/2016 18:33

I'm the main breadwinner, owned my own flat, had a car and got married at 35. I'm
not religious - had a humanist wedding. Now have a child and another on the way. I got married because I wanted to. I still (gasp!) have full control over my (our) money and a career. Who would have thought?

Blueskyrain · 03/10/2016 18:43

I married my husband because I love him and wanted to commit my life to him. I don't give a monkey's about any other reasons, they dont mean anything to me.

phillipp · 03/10/2016 19:16

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.

That's presuming the breadwinner mother gets full custody of the kids?

What if the dad gets residency?

Why are kids, whose parents split, disadvantaged when the woman earns more but not when the man earns more?

Mittensonastring · 03/10/2016 19:34

Agree on the pensions , benefits, tax and legal reasons to marry, it's great . It's when couples break up its the issue due to asset splitting.

If I broke up right now with DH and we spilt 50/50 he would be down a bit as he does have more assets than me, we did build those assets together though we have separate finances.

If I now got together with anyone who had a lot less asset wise than me there is no way I would marry them.

Kerberos · 03/10/2016 19:41

I'll declare I have a particular viewpoint interest as DP aren't married and nor will we ever be, having been together since we were 23 we're knocking on 17 years and three children together. Most people on meeting us assume we're married.

I do get what the OP is saying and they have a point. I love my DP and the life we've built together, if we split it'll be just as hard as a divorce but I just don't see the point in us getting married now.

As for "divorces lasting 11.3 years and relationships averaging three" from a PP, that statistic makes no sense without context.

FleurThomas · 03/10/2016 20:22

Where I work women who are the main breadwinner & high earners are more likely to be married with a SAHP who does school runs etc.

EBearhug · 03/10/2016 20:42

The average Victorian marriage lasted 12 years. It's just they mostly ended because of death rather than divorce.

KERALA1 · 03/10/2016 20:49

FYI marriage invalidates your wills, unless that will was made in contemplation of a particular marriage to a named person. Catches some people out.

Ciutadella · 04/10/2016 07:06

Returning to one of the points made below, Making a will won't necessarily ensure your dc get your assets rather than a 'new' dh. One, if you divorce your dh may be entitled to a share (a prenup might help but isn't guaranteed to do so). Two, if you leave the new dh out of the will he may be able to make a dependency claim to inherit - though he may be able to do that even if you don't marry and he remains a Dp, i think.
So either way it is difficult to 100% protect your assets for your dc if you go into a new relationship - but more difficult if you marry.

In general, if there are major disparities in earnings, marriage is not particularly in the financial interests of the higher earner. Obviously there are other interests at stake as well!

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 08/10/2016 12:05

We got married because we loved each other. My DH died when our DCs were in primary school. Much to my delight and surprise I became entitled to a bereaved parent's allowance paid every fortnight until my youngest child left education. Marriage can have unexpected benefits.

HyacinthFuckit · 08/10/2016 12:26

Tax free allowance only really applies for SAHPs

Not true in the slightest. It applies for anyone where one partner is a 20% rate taxpayer and the other has earnings of less than 11k. It's actually quite a lot you can earn before income tax kicks in, over £900 a month. Even if your income is low enough to be able to transfer the maximum, that's around £800 monthly. Many people would have to be working not far south of full time to bring that in. 35 x NMW is just under £1100 a month pre-deductions.

In terms of the OP, the specific situation she's given isn't a very good argument. But it is true that for some people marriage isn't legally or financially advantageous, and some of those people are women. This obviously doesn't factor in things like religious and cultural considerations, visas, pensions that don't automatically go to non-spouses etc.

AnnieOnnieMouse · 08/10/2016 17:19

I think you may only be able to transfer a percentage of your unused allowance to your spouse. I have done it to DH, and it doesn't make much difference, tho anything is better than nothing. I think that in some instances a surviving spouse might have rights to continue a tenancy, whereas a surviving non-married partner might not have.
I think there are some careers where the couple might need to be married to get the right to travel, accommodation, etc if working abroad.
Widow's pensions and the ability to claim on your late DH's NI payments can make a huge difference to women who were long term sahms or only paid the lower level of NI stamp.

Chopstick17 · 08/10/2016 17:33

Not sure what marriage has to do with the emotional fall out for children if their parents split up.