Marriage between two parties who are massively different earners is too bigger risk for one patry

[Whoarethewho]

So to set the scene. Been together over 8 years. My partner is applying pressure to marry. However with 50% of marriages ending in divorce and us more than occasionally arguing this worries me. I own my own house brought outright with cash from my work, I have significant pensions saved already (sever hundred k). And I earn 6x my partner's salary (we both work full time), I pay for all bills council tax water ect. They contribute nothing financially. And I don't want children nor do I want them to be a stay at home house maker.

My partner wants the big white dress\suit style wedding. All I see with current divorce legislation is a massive payout coming in the future where I would have to give up half I have worked so hard for when there would be no sacrifices required for the marriage (it's not like they were paying for the mortgage or caring for children). Legally binding prenuptial agreements would help here but sadly are not valid in England. So really unless children are intended to be involved I can't really see why a higher earning partner would consent to marriage where the partner could leave at any time and just take half the assets.

Do you agree? I know people of both sexes in this sort of situation so it's not just me that thinks like this.

Yanbu marriage may be right for some but not here
Yabu marriage is a risk people with much to loose should still take.

I think it is somewhat ironic that people view the OP as the transactional mercenary one when it sounds like it's the partner who is getting to have a very nice lifestyle based on the OPs financial acumem/good luck/earning capacity. Would the partner still be around if the OP suddenly couldnt or wouldn't contribute anything to their joint lifestyle? Ethically, or from the point of view of human dignity, I do not know how one healthy adult could allow another to pay all the bills etc without contributing in proportion to earnings.

@Whoarethewho

Thanks for all the comments it's good to see a wide range of views in this situation. I didn't want any accusations of bring a cocklodger, man child or gold digger hence I keep everything gender neutral. I guess it shows there are a wide range of views all seem equally valid.

Some quick points before I have to head back to work.
Mumsnet contributors regularly advices marriage as a transaction and if children are involved or the expectation that one gives up their career/ earning potential then marriage is essential for that (for most people I would say). But whilst marriage provides a contract it isn't like many others for example if marrying at 20 something you would expect marriage terms "for long as we both shall live" (so about 50 years) to have break clauses if one partner was to exit the marriage. I doubt any court of law would enforce those clauses nor indeed can I see anyone aggreeing financial penalties on the lower income person if they decided to break the contract. And it isn't much like an employment contract either where you can serve notice and then wait out a notice period. So I don't see it as a contract for the benefit of both parties like any other contract.
Given the high number of divorces (in 2019 I went to 3 weddings an statistically at least 1 will end in divorce) you have to consider how a marriage would end and even maintain ones independence throughout. None of those walking down the isle I bet thought it would be them but it will be one. And how often do we encourage people to be financially independent when a relationship is on rockey ground being prepared and considering divorce at the early stages seems prudent.
Finally I guess the important thing I take from this is to be open and honest about it. If prenuptial agreements were valid then there would be no question about it. Getting married would be fine. I'm not expecting them to equally contribute I love them enough to want to spend all my time with them because of who they are. They work full time and every penny they earn is their own to spend save or invest how they like. That doesn't mean I want to give them half of everything I own.

Thanks again for all your views. I will see if there are better ways to express an show love that may be accepted. They say buying a home is the biggest financial commitment you will ever make but there are some that are even bigger.

But, should anything happen to you, what will happen to your partner? Have you written a will? Will they be homeless?

@BetterKateThanNever

My husband is and has been a high earner since we met and I've not worked for the last 6 years- We've been together 7. We got married because we love each other- the money aspect didn't affect our decision. The only reason you shouldn't get married is because you're arguing too much and clearly don't want to marry him!

What do you do if you don't work? I am intrigued

@CallMeCleo most people posting on their phone don't bother to check their spelling. Especially with the laggy mess that is Mumsnet's mobile page!

@Whoarethewho

Thanks for all the comments it's good to see a wide range of views in this situation. I didn't want any accusations of bring a cocklodger, man child or gold digger hence I keep everything gender neutral. I guess it shows there are a wide range of views all seem equally valid.

Some quick points before I have to head back to work.
Mumsnet contributors regularly advices marriage as a transaction and if children are involved or the expectation that one gives up their career/ earning potential then marriage is essential for that (for most people I would say). But whilst marriage provides a contract it isn't like many others for example if marrying at 20 something you would expect marriage terms "for long as we both shall live" (so about 50 years) to have break clauses if one partner was to exit the marriage. I doubt any court of law would enforce those clauses nor indeed can I see anyone aggreeing financial penalties on the lower income person if they decided to break the contract. And it isn't much like an employment contract either where you can serve notice and then wait out a notice period. So I don't see it as a contract for the benefit of both parties like any other contract.
Given the high number of divorces (in 2019 I went to 3 weddings an statistically at least 1 will end in divorce) you have to consider how a marriage would end and even maintain ones independence throughout. None of those walking down the isle I bet thought it would be them but it will be one. And how often do we encourage people to be financially independent when a relationship is on rockey ground being prepared and considering divorce at the early stages seems prudent.
Finally I guess the important thing I take from this is to be open and honest about it. If prenuptial agreements were valid then there would be no question about it. Getting married would be fine. I'm not expecting them to equally contribute I love them enough to want to spend all my time with them because of who they are. They work full time and every penny they earn is their own to spend save or invest how they like. That doesn't mean I want to give them half of everything I own.

Thanks again for all your views. I will see if there are better ways to express an show love that may be accepted. They say buying a home is the biggest financial commitment you will ever make but there are some that are even bigger.

Well the contract is more binding because it was designed to financially safeguard children. Who can’t be returned or handed back if one party changes their mind.

@Poorlykitten

I would feel extremely upset if my partner felt this way and didn’t want to marry me because of having no assets or not earning enough. Am i massive old fashioned? I believe you should marry for love, if you don’t love him then fair enough but surely no one walks in to a marriage thinking about the divorce?

Totally disagree. Marriage is a legal contract whether you like it or not. Nobody thinks divorce will happen to them but it is a possibility and I don’t see how anyone could be naive enough to take that risk if they have a lot of assets to lose, no matter how much they might love someone. Marrying only ‘for love’ is wilfully ignoring the legal implications of it.

I was in exactly the same position, OP. We both ran the emotional risk of the marriage not working out, but for me it would have meant life changing loss of savings. I decided I wasn't ready to effectively bet more than half the value of my house on us having a successful marriage.

I am the higher earner by far and own my own house in London, I have a DP and I will not marry him and I will not put his name on my house ( I am currently selling and buying a new one )

I don't think this is one for AIBU - but marriage should only be considered IMHO where both parties really want to marry and consider it to be a lifelong commitment that they are entering into. It sounds like this is definitely not the case here. The income differential seems like a massive red herring here.

Marriage is not for you as you do not wish to marry your partner.

But you are - somewhat - wrong about pre-nups. It’s worth seeing a solicitor if were the only thing putting you off. If both sides have made full disclosure, had legal advice and neither was under pressure, then in the absence of children (which changes the analysis of need), a pre-nup is very likely to be upheld. But as I say you don’t sound as though you want marriage.

Just be honest about it though. Leave no room for doubt/hope; if there is done. That way your partner can decide for themselves what they want to do.

Totally agree with you re risk to you OP

@TedMullins I’m
Sorry you feel that way but that’s not why I married. Never did I once think about the financial aspects. I guess if you are then maybe marriage is not for you.

Marriage is like giving someone a gun to point at your head, simply because you "trust" that they'll never be in a position to want to pull the trigger.
If there are no kids involved, it doesn't make sense for the higher earner. It does make a lot of sense for the lower earner because it gives them all the power.
Whilst the relationship is good, they get a good relationship. If they no longer want the relationship, regardless of the reason, they get a good chunk of your assets for leaving. It's win-win for them.

Another thing I have noticed is that you say you don't want children but it's not clear if that is also the case for your partner - if you haven't already you should be absolutely clear to her/him that you don't want children, especially if they are female which, as PP have said, means that they have a shorter time when they have children.

It doesn't sound like you should get married, it does sound like you owe your partner an open and honest conversation about where you see the future of your relationship so they can decide for themselves whether there are happy with that long term.

It sounds like it's not for you - marriage. I think there are risks, too, that your partner's circumstances will make marriage seem like the only safe, hopeful, or rational outcome to them. They have trapped themselves in something which is insecure.
If you're paying all the bills and they aren't contributing to a mortgage or anything, they will have got used, after eight years, to an easier discomfort-free style of living - the only fly in the ointment being it might end, and then they would be outside with their smaller income, looking for somewhere to rent or buy; bemoaning irritations like broken shelves and car MOTs looming, which they didn't need to think about before and which will now on be giving them that dull, boring downer.

If you split, it is likely to be bad-tempered. You will find it hard to explain why you don't just want to marry her because it's the natural next step. She will have got used to a lifestyle and probably has spent her own money on makeup and holidays with you and hasn't assiduously saved.

You'd be best off, being brave on a way, and saying what posters have said here: that marriage is a legally and financially binding contract, and when it's weighted against you gaining, and more likely you'll lose a lot, be there divorce, it isn't worth it for you.

It is likely you will split, as there isn't enough undying love to make you want to give up everything material to chance, for their sake. And I think you think, underneath it all, that they might divorce you later, that's why you don't feel good about taking a risk. You're explanation makes clear you don't feel that their love has been the wind beneath your wings making your flight to success all possible, and impossible without them. Your partner just seems to be there. If you did go on to marry, they might not like you much for having made them wait.

If you leave your relationship many more years you'll be into the territory of leaving it too late for them to have children effortless with someone else.

It might be nice if a mature discussion goes well to gift them some money to help them to get a place of their own or not to be in trouble. Not the case if you were an average earner, but you do seem to be very well off. It would just be a nice thing to do out of empathy for their life and respect for what they've given to your life. You can't go on for years, I don't think, with one person really wanting marriage and the other not.

The risk for you is losing half of your large estate. On the other hand the biggest risk for your partner is that they live in “your” house and in 10, 20 or 30 years you separate and they have nothing - not even a home - or half a home.

If they were in a relationship with someone earning similar it is likely that they would get a mortgage and build equity over the years. Although you might say that they could invest their wages in property I’m guessing they they will need to spend quite a bit to keep up with your lifestyle (holidays/meals etc) unless you pay all the time, which might not be acceptable to either of you.

I think if you don’t marry (which I totally understand) you could still do with a solution so your partner accrues equity in their own home. It seems likely that this would have to be through your generosity of either gifting an amount of equity over time or subsidising their lifestyle so they can buy in to your property or another on a mortgage. If you don’t want to be financially disadvantaged at all then you need to fund a partner with similar means really.

but surely no one walks in to a marriage thinking about the divorce?

But marriage isn’t ‘til death do us part’, how many people would marry in this era without divorce being at least an option?

@CallMeCleo

For me the burning question is, how did you get to earn such a massive salary when you can't spell "lose" or "aisle" or "etc"? Porn actor?

@Purplewithred

If your first thought about your marriage to this person is how the divorce is going to pan out then don't marry them.

My thoughts exactly.

I’m wondering if you don’t want to get married or have children, where you think your money will end up on your death?

Yes, I agree, money doesn't bring happiness.

In your position OP I wouldn’t be getting married but I’d absolutely have been crystal clear about that at the start of any relationship.

@BluebellsGreenbells

I’m wondering if you don’t want to get married or have children, where you think your money will end up on your death?

In my case with the beneficiaries of my will

I wouldn't marry in your circumstances.

I would be questioning is this the correct relationship for either of you. I don't care about divorce rates etc I personally believe if I married my partner it would be for life. If your not of that belief then you clearly have doubts in the relationship. I hear a lot about you don't want marriage, children or them to stay at home but nothing about what your partner wants. Do they want children? Do they intend to progress their career? Your only talking about your wishes and that's not how relationships work.