To think marriage doesn't actually make much difference to most everyday women?

[Dojasayso]

Interested to hear other people's realistic opinion regarding marriage.

In principle marriage in practical terms means a joining of assets/finances and thus meaning in the case of divorce assets are split accordingly.

So therefore I understand on that basis it can be seen as 'protection' as often stated on mumsnet.

However in the real world of modern everyday people where both men and women typically work, I don't actually see how it makes such difference unless you are a high earning household.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage.

Examples:

1. Many people rent so in the case of divorce then whoever can afford it will take over the tenancy and the other rents somewhere else. Either party may also be helped by housing benefit to top up rent if eligible. Child maintenance also issued to primary caregiver.

Marriage has made no difference?

1. Unmarried couple buy a house together, split up and sell property and split equity or someone buys the other out just like if divorcing? Someone can't run off with the equity of a jointly own home if you've bought a house together. Judges won't demand the party that moves out (usually man) pays the mortgage until children move out unless they are exceptionally high earning. Especially if that means that party cannot go on to buy another house themselves.

So again, marriage hasn't made much difference?

1. Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum.

Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off. If house is owned then as above, they split equity and mum still claims plus maintenance. She can either buy another house if she can afford it or rents with housing benefit element if low earning. Being married would have made no difference.

1. SAHM, dad walks out. Same as above, income support plus other benefits and child maintenance. If renting then housing benefit, if owned then equity split.

So unless you are hugh earning how are you protected? A man doesn't suddenly become a high earner when your married so that in the event of divorce you suddenly have money when you previously didn't.

There's also lot of two parent families that still need to claim top ups despite working. Being married then divorcing won't change that?

You get asked to name beneficiaries on pensions and life insurance when you sign up, so again marriage makes no difference there in the event of death. Unless again, one is a high earner with assets on top on pensions/insurances to be split.

And before ANYONE does the classic line of "medical decisions and next of kin if DP is in a coma/life support". Marriage makes NO difference!!
Unless you have Lasting Power of Attorney for someone you CANNOT make any decisions about someone incapacitated regardless if they are your husband/wife. It's a medical decision made by a doctor in regards to procedures. A doctor won't say "we won't perform surgery because his wife doesn't want us too". You have to have an advanced statement in place which is done through a solicitor and not marriage.

Anything else requires a "best interest decision" decided by health and social care professionals (usually social worker). Doesn't matter if your married or not. Unless you have LPA you cannot make decisions on any incapacitated persons behalf.
You don't need to be married to have LPA, you can make anyone your LPA.

Soo mumsnet, am I missing something?! Unless you are a high earner I don't see this magical "protection" thats talked about? Other than widows benefit? But you can only claim that for 6 months.

Please enlighten me to how marriage protects your average Joe family that claim tax credits/rents/jointly owns etc .

Disclaimer: I am not against marriage and infact plan on marrying my DP next year but for emotional/commitment reasons of wanting marriage and not practical/financial reasons.

VOTING:
YABU: marriage does benefit low/middle earners
YANBU: marriage doesn't make much difference to everyday people.

Excuse typos! On my mobile!

Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum.
Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off.

Haahaahaa! There's no more bloody tax credits or income support. It's all been amalgamated into UC and has been for at least 3 years across all councils. It's far more restrictive. LHA caps have been in place for years.

Your ignorance about the welfare system and assuming it's the default to relationship breakdown makes your entire OP rather nonsensical. As it is is alarmingly simplistic.

You're right it doesn't really matter, until you have kids. Then as a woman your earnings take a massive hit for a good 10 years which doesn't happen to your DH. If you were to split you would want an equal share of everything which you wouldn't get if not married. CMS often is a small amount that doesn't actually cover the cost of raising the kids btw.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage

You are so funny

It used to be a classic observation in social science that the working classes could afford to split up because they didn’t have any assets to lose and the upper classes could afford to split because they had plenty, but the mass middle classes would be thrown into awkward circumstances by a split, so they stuck together.

You say “ordinary women” and most of the posters reading will think you mean them
but that could range from NMW earners to extremely high earners. Whatever is normal on your circles becomes “ordinary” to you.

Two obvious examples where marriage protects - regardless of existing circumstances - are chronic illness or a disabled child.

Of course it matters, especially to mothers , especially if the relationship breaks down

You're getting married next year, congratulations 😀💐 come back and talk to us a few years in when you've been forced to give up work and stay home with the kids. Not saying it's not worthwhile or worth it but women often don't understand how we are disadvantaged until kids come along and then everything changes.

YABU esp when children are involved.

@Trixie78

You're right it doesn't really matter, until you have kids. Then as a woman your earnings take a massive hit for a good 10 years which doesn't happen to your DH. If you were to split you would want an equal share of everything which you wouldn't get if not married. CMS often is a small amount that doesn't actually cover the cost of raising the kids btw.

It doesn't have to be that way. I don't feel my earnings have taken a massive hit at all.

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men. I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload. It hasn't impacted my career in the slightest.

If one of you dies (it happens) being married gives you rights over the assets that you don't have if you are not married.

If the split occurs at a point where a mother is effectively being financed by husband to look after young kids, spousal maintenance - i.e
. a continuation of the arrangement can be ordered in divorce.

Agree with PPsv often it's women who make the sacrifice when children come along.

Also, if you meet someone, move into their home, pay towards the bills and decorate etc that home for say 15 years. You want the protection of marriage to get half the value of what has long since become your home.

It definitely can matter in death, in relation to inheritance tax.
I get widowed parents allowance (although it was a pre-April 2017 death, so more generous than current rules).

@Increscendo

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men. I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload. It hasn't impacted my career in the slightest.

It doesn’t always but for some it does. Employers can be very wary of Mums or even women of fertile age. Then you actually get pregnant and a proportion of employers will take the opportunity to offload or sideline you (illegally but it’s hard to prove). Not all DC are the same and if, for example, you get one with SN or disability or even a tendency to be ill, you’ll soon find out that schools, local authorities, society in general expect Mums to be the caregivers.

Me neither @TrustTheGeneGenie

I took mat leave for two babies within three years. I went back each time on four day’s per week and my husband reduced his hours to four days per week too. We have therefore both been able to keep our careers going while kids only have three days of nursery. We have both received significant promotions since our first baby was born - in fact I’ve had two. I now earn more on four days than I did full time when I first got pregnant. I’m not bragging by any means, just stating that baby = fucked earnings for a decade isn’t the case for all women by any means. Mat leave twice was a minor blip in my pension contributions and yes I’ve taken a 20% pay cut by working four day’s (so has my husband, despite his penis) and that’s about it.

@Increscendo

I honestly don't see how having children impacts women more than men. I would never have children with someone that doesn't take 50% of children workload. It hasn't impacted my career in the slightest.

Many women want to work reduced hours to look after their children. It's a complicated subject but the fact remains, women shoulder more of this than men more often than not.

Please be careful. Marriage affords you much more protection than you'd think.

@Increscendo that's a great ideal but once the baby is here there is little you can do to enforce it. And, you know, you might not want to do 50:50 when the baby is here. I was going to be (and was for 15 months) a working full time mum. Hated every minute of it and ended up as a SAHM for 6 years. Luckily I was married so had some security.

I’m not bragging by any means, just stating that baby = fucked earnings for a decade isn’t the case for all women by any means.

But it is for some.

Just as some men talk the equal parenting talk but refuse the first fence.

You can plan all you like but there are no guarantees.

But can you please explain what a primary caregiver (usually women). Would suddenly get if she were married?

She can't get what isn't there in the first place?
Spousal allowance isn't awarded most of the time in divorce?

You can't get awarded most of the savings if you don't have significant savings?

You may get a bit more equity upon the sale of the family home for rehousing in the divorce process. But again, if you can't afford the mortgage to stay then the judge won't make the ex husband pay the mortgage until the youngest is 18 if he can't then buy himself unless high earning. It's usually a forced sale if the woman can't buy the man out.

I'm not being goady honestly. I genuinely do not understand the benefits unless high earning.

Couple get together and live in his house for 10 years, have two children but never marry. She contributes to household expenses, runs the home and reduces her hours to care for dcs.
Then they split.

She leaves with nothing, no deposit to rent or buy despite having contributed for a decade. No guarantee of suitable public housing. Has to move area and school.

He's a company director, pays himself with dividends. Resists paying maintenance. It takes more than a year for company accounts to show his income during which he pays nothing. CMS take their time to pursue him.

Oh a day to day basis it doesn't make much difference. However it does make a big difference for inheritance purposes, while we all hope that won't be an issue for some it will be.
I am a stay at home parent but I work some hours, but I don't have much of a pension pot. Being married gives me a claim to my husbands pension if we divorce, or if he dies.
I also claim the marriage tax allowance which isn't much but gives us an extra few hundred quid a year.

@increscendo has hit the spot here.

I refused to also have children with a man who refused to share childcare responsibility equally and my career has pretty much stayed where it was before DC.

However, I accept there are some cases where men become abusive once the woman has got pregnant, and I feel for them. The ones who put up with and indeed procreate with selfish awful men get, what is to be expected.

Better education of girls from an early age to be self sufficient and not tolerate/identify abusive behaviour in partners could be a welcome step to help this in the next generation.

I wouldn't get married purely for the complications it brings. I don't need a piece of paper and a title to prove how much I love my partner.

Obviously there are pros and cons to both.
I stay at home with the children but still have a good income (self employed) and he goes to work. If it came to a medical decision, as you stated you need to go through a legal route anyway. He or a family member could apply for power of attorney etc.

I have never seen the point in marriage and don't like the idea of being financially responsible for someone else (e.g if he were to get in debt and it was left to me to sort etc). I had this view long before I met my other half and isn't based on his behaviour, it's just a strong view that I have always had. I think marriage works for some and not for others depending on the reasons you choose to do it, but for me I have never wanted it and we have now been to get 15 years.