To ask if there is any point in professional women getting married these days?

[CinderellaRockafella]

Slightly tongue in cheek but....

my niece is about to buy a house with her partner. They are both in their 30s and already own (with mortgages) properties.

I know she's wanting to have children soon - bio clock ticking.

The family 'expect' that an engagement and wedding will follow at some point after the house purchase.

But - she's bringing a lot more equity to the purchase, thanks to a family inheritance. She's sensible and setting up a deed of trust.
She's a professional, has a good income.

It just made me question what, if anything, some women with their own solid finances have to gain by marriage.

I went down that route as in my day it was not acceptable to 'live in sin'. I didn't live with DH before we married and the balance was the opposite for me- he was the higher earner and already owned a home.

Other than Inheritance Tax issues in the future, it's made me wonder what benefits marriage has now for women who are already fully independent with their own homes.

I'm not up to date with benefits etc and child maintenance in cases where couples split, so maybe there are advantages to being married?

What if her partner is in hospital or dies? I would want to be married then

I married my husband because I love him and wanted to make the commitment. Also so that our children all have the same name as both of us and should anything happen to either one of us the other is set up. I don't care that I put more money in the house. Its our family house I invested in my family. I wouldn't have married him if i thought we would divorce or he would screw me over. I know anything can happen and in my opinion thats just a risk you take

There was a great thread about this a while ago! I'll find it for you hang on

@Sandinmyknickers

What if her partner is in hospital or dies? I would want to be married then

You can set up a living will for this. Next of kin in this country doesn't seem to have any legal status from what I've read. A person in hospital can designate anyone into this role.

Should we be married? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4321393-should-we-be-married

@Sandinmyknickers

What if her partner is in hospital or dies? I would want to be married then

Why? You can state your next of kin on you hospital records and if theres no arguments with in laws I cant see the problem here.

I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just interested as I am in the same boat as the ops niece.

Because even today most professional women still take long maternity leaves and that then results in a large % being out of the workforce for literally years. Not working for maternity leave or longer reduces your lifetime earnings and can set back your career progression such that your nonchildbearing partner speeds ahead of you and becomes the higher earner. Even after the professional mother returns to work, the dynamic of her as primary caregiver is established and she is the one with flexible work, part time, taking time off for sick child...further hamstringing her earnings and career.

Children also stress a relationship....breakups are very common and if you are just the girlfriend with two DC under age 5, all you get is child maintenance of lucky. Assets are not split 50/50 like they are with a marriage.

I’d agree with you if the couple had no intention of ever having children, but in todays world marriage is the best protection for a woman intending to start a family.

@Aimee1987 you dont know that there will be no arguments with the in laws until you are in that horrific situation!

For me, it was just because it made sense to me in my head.

I was with my partner for 8 years - didn't want to get married, had no intention to... even asked him not to propose as didn't see the point. Then I went through a really traumatic period of my life and he was there, 100% supportive and just being amazing. At which point, something clicked in my head and I thought 'Well, I'll never want to be with anyone else, so why don't we get married?' So I proposed to him and we've been married for 3 years.

It makes it easier that we both have very similar incomes and brought the same amount of equity to the marriage - else I would have also asked for a deed of trust (even if he owned more). We won't be having children so I didn't get married for any protection and both of us are fairly high earners so we don't need the other one to afford a mortgage or bills.

Interestingly, we have both had some health scares over the last few years (thankfully everything is fine with both of us) and being married did mean that we were automatically each others next of kin and that did give me some comfort, knowing that we both knew what the other one would want if things didn't have the positive outcome we were hoping for.

I’m the higher earner and got married because I love my husband and wanted that extra level of commitment. I also like being able to say husband! It got to the point where boyfriend felt wrong.

We are also thinking of moving abroad at some point (my work) and it helps for visa reasons as well!

I think if you want to commit to someone, it’s a good way of doing so, which also have inheritance tax / practical benefits. I also (maybe naively) think we’re going to be together forever anyway, so may as well get married to reflect that

In the case of a marital breakdown, she would be worse-off of her current situation (higher earner of the two) remains the same.

If, for some reason, her earning capability changes in the future (unpaid maternity leave, decides to take time off to be a SAHM/go part-time), becomes disabled in some way and can’t work), and the marriage broke down, she’s be on a much better position.

If the marriage is a happy and long-one that lasts until a spouse dies, they’d both be better off due to inheritance tax rules.

I totally get this. My first moved in with me and I continued to pay the mortgage on my own. My maternity package meant I still did so through both pregnancies. His family see that man of the house as the 'boss of the house'

It drives me mad. Now I am part time and dh put a huge deposit on our forever home that was triple what in and now we pay half.

So I actually don't think women have it any better at all.

My husband (typo)

@planderaccordement but this depends upon the dynamics of the relationship. I took 6 months full pay ( including pension contributions) and still got a promotion shortly after my mat leave making me the higher earner. My partner also took 4 months off for pat leave so slightly less but not by much. The impact of having a child depends on a number of factors and the default women as the primary career is not always the case.

1. Because statistically, their earning positions are likely to reverse post kids. Depressing but true.

2. Because there are lots of legal/financial benefits to being married such as various rights which apply automatically on death or divorce. These can (mostly not entirely) be replicated by drawing up various legal agreements but it’s expensive and complex compared with just getting married.

Some people simply fall in love and see getting married as the natural next step. All things considered I don't think marriage has the same pull it does on young women today as it did years ago, in part because many women simply don't 'need' a man and I think many women no longer fear the 'you'll grow old alone' narrative that society likes to use to terrify young women with. No doubt this has fuelled some of the incel culture we see so widespread today.

[quote Aimee1987]@planderaccordement but this depends upon the dynamics of the relationship. I took 6 months full pay ( including pension contributions) and still got a promotion shortly after my mat leave making me the higher earner. My partner also took 4 months off for pat leave so slightly less but not by much. The impact of having a child depends on a number of factors and the default women as the primary career is not always the case.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why I qualified it with “most” professional women. Because statistically what I outlined is the most common outcome even today,

My story is similar to yours. I took 12 weeks maternity from due date with each DC so returned to my FT work when they were 10-11wks old. I have always been and still am the higher earner because my DH is in the nonprofit sector (civil services, charities etc).

Children also stress a relationship....breakups are very common and if you are just the girlfriend with two DC under age 5, all you get is child maintenance of lucky. Assets are not split 50/50 like they are with a marriage.

But in her case @CinderellaRockafella, she'd presumably get more than 50-50 because the house purchase would be 75% her capital and 25% his. Courts also look more favourably on who would be staying in a house with the children.

If she had a pre-nup, which I know is not legal but still has a lot of weight (she's done the research), she would stand to hold onto her equity.

I don't go along with the romantic version of 'we are in love and it will never end' because I've seen the complete opposite happen to 'secure' couples.

In this case, her earning power is equal to his, she's in a shortage area of work (science), and fully intends to carry on working.

Sorry I tagged myself not @PlanDeRaccordement :)

You say assets aren't split as in a marriage.

If there is no marriage, the couple split assets as they choose.

You don't involve the courts if you are co-habiting.

In situations where its a first relationship for both with no previous children, and there's a plan to have children, I think its always a good idea.

I've posted about this before but I know two couples where the professional, higher earning female spouse developed a severe and unexpected auto-immune condition after having children. In one case, income protection eventually ran out (despite their consultant saying they weren't fit to work, insurance company argued they were well enough for a phased return -this was after a number of years - and they didn't have it in them to fight). In another, it happened when they had moved to a fixed term contract and didn't have the protection they would otherwise have accrued. They are now both essentially dependent on their other halves as carers and breadwinners, both are good guys and both relationships are still going strong but there's massive massive strain. And one of them is married, and one of them isn't. And even in that situation, where ten years ago they both would have basically been in the position of your niece, the one who is married has much greater protection.

Personally, we're fairly equal earners but I am likely to inherit a considerable amount more at some point. We're equal co-parents, we're equal partners, we've always shared finances and have a similar attitude to money. If I inherited, and we divorced a number of years later - well, I'd struggle to really see why that unearned money was more deserved by me than him.

I actually think the biggest issue for professional women is ensuring their relationships and careers stay equal. The biggest issue where I see women being screwed is where they hang around for years with someone who isn't pulling their weight domestically, isn't being an equal parent, and they're still the higher earner. I think we need a culture where its easier for people to make a stand about that stuff earlier. But I still think in an equal relationship marriage is a protection, not a burden.

I'm confused by the emphasis by some on next of kin.
If you need someone to make life or death decisions for you, you set up a Power of Attorney.

Its exactly the reason I won't marry dp. I have far more in assets and earn more.

However, we won't be having kids. So no chance of him being a sahd. If we were having kids and he was going to be sahd, then I would want him to have more security. If neither of us was going to be part time working or sahp, things would remain as they are.

Anything I leave is going to my own kids apart from a life insurance policy. Dp is fully aware of this and knows he would be leaving the home if I died. But he said he wouldn't want to remain here if I wasn't. So it works out.

I love him and are committed to him. You don't need a wedding for either of those things. I think marriage and weddings have been marketed as to being about love and romance far too much and the legal/financial implications are down played far too much.

I do think everyone should look at the pros and cons of marriage from the financial and legal sense, see if it fits their circumstances. If not getting married leaves you very vulnerable and your partner doesn't want to get married, then I think you should be rethinking the relationship.

Maybe because they love each other?

A marriage is a dedication, a commitment.

If there is no marriage, the couple split assets as they choose.

And she would only have a legal claim on the deposit she has legally ring fenced. In my experience most splits are not amicable, so it not a matter of a reasonable discussion leading to a fair split in assets.

In this case, her earning power is equal to his, she's in a shortage area of work (science), and fully intends to carry on working.

Lots of women fully intend to carry on working, but then they change their minds after firstborn arrives. There is also still social stigma against mothers who return to work with small infants. I know I experienced it, and I see on threads it’s still alive and well comments that 2 month old is “too small” to put in a nursery, that you “can’t breastfeed and work” and “why have children if you’re not going to be home with them” type comments.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Because even today most professional women still take long maternity leaves and that then results in a large % being out of the workforce for literally years. Not working for maternity leave or longer reduces your lifetime earnings and can set back your career progression such that your nonchildbearing partner speeds ahead of you and becomes the higher earner. Even after the professional mother returns to work, the dynamic of her as primary caregiver is established and she is the one with flexible work, part time, taking time off for sick child...further hamstringing her earnings and career.

Children also stress a relationship....breakups are very common and if you are just the girlfriend with two DC under age 5, all you get is child maintenance of lucky. Assets are not split 50/50 like they are with a marriage.

I’d agree with you if the couple had no intention of ever having children, but in todays world marriage is the best protection for a woman intending to start a family.

This. Unless your niece is only going to take the minimum 2 weeks maternity leave and go back full time. And her partner is going to take on 50% of housework, childcare, wife work and emotional labour.

There’s no reason he can’t. It’s just I can safely predict he won’t. Because men never do. I don’t know of / have heard of any man ever doing this. They only exist in theory.