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?

I suppose the same applies to higher earning, asset owning men with professional careers - what benefit does marriage have for them?

Man or woman, if one partner is notably better off financially than the other then there is a risk that they will lose 50% or more to a spouse who has brought less to the table.

But many will still get married. one reason is that if you are collectively wealthy there are huge IHT benefits for your spouse and children of the marriage.
Many feel (rightly so) that their spouse should be financially protected for a parenting/support role that contributes in a different way to the relationship/family.

Overall women are likely to benefit more from the arrangement if there are children because of maternity leave, career breaks, more likely to work part time, more likely to be RP if the couple splits etc. even if they were originally wealthier/the higher earner.

@imogen
My partner took 4 months pat leave. I wouldn't say common but still not unheard of. I think this is a situation where the goverment need to offer more actual resources to both parents to support both parents having time off. Therefore addressing the imbalance.

[quote Aimee1987]@imogen
My partner took 4 months pat leave. I wouldn't say common but still not unheard of. I think this is a situation where the goverment need to offer more actual resources to both parents to support both parents having time off. Therefore addressing the imbalance.[/quote]
That’s great, is he now doing 50% of everything while you both work full time ?

There’s no imbalance in government funding that stops men doing housework , childcare and wifework.

I earn more and contributed more equity (due to an inheritance) to our house purchase than my husband. As my career has slowed a little due to maternity leave and working part time, there may be points at which his income overtakes mine (he has also had significant periods of unpaid parental leave but I have taken more overall) but then it may reverse again.
I think we both view my career as more non-negotiable (as well as earnings it's highly qualified, something I have worked specifically toward for over a decade and a big part of my identity) - there have already been occasions where he has followed my career and one future possibility we are considering may involve him not working in employment at all but having a stay at home role.

Taking into account these factors I believe the legal institution of marriage protects both of us. It's as important to me to treat my husband fairly as it is for him to treat me fairly. Regarding ourselves as a single/combined financial unit with joint plans for the future and a "what's yours is mine" mentality to feels to me like being relieved of a burden (that is of quibbling and fretting over whose is what). Marriage I believe is the best set up if you have this attitude. Ultimately we regard ourselves as both working toward the benefit of our family. I doubt I'd be a complete saint in the event of our relationship breaking down but he will always be my family because he is the father of my children and his wellbeing is to an extent, theirs.

One of the most significant benefits to me is what would happen in the event of serious illness or death - things like for example, my husband being able to receive my (relatively generous) pension or visa versa. Everything is set up by default because we are married.

And she would only have a legal claim on the deposit she has legally ring fenced.

Only - I think that makes the point very well.

Yes and that's the whole point! If she put in (fictitious figures) £300K and he put in £100K, she'd keep that.

It seems people are saying that if the woman is in a better financial position she might be better to avoid marriage in case they split up later and she has to share 'her' assets with her husband. Would you think this is acceptable if it was the other way around and the man didn't want to marry in case he had to share?

Even if you do think it should work both ways round, I still think it's a terrible basis for a committed long-term relationship.
If I had been the richest/higher earner when I was married, I would still have wanted to marry. I would never want an unequal partnership instead of an equal marriage. If you're lucky enough to have found a genuinely committed decent man, and you are equally committed to them, surely you would want to share everything, no matter what unforeseeable thing might happen in the future? My husband and me are joined together now - we have nothing that is not shared; hopes, dreams, hearts, and yes finances. I wouldn't want a long-term marriage or partnership that was any other way. Especially not one where one person was guarding their assets from the other.

Jesus, what misogyny.

I married my husband when I was a professional earning 6 figures and he was a (mature) student. I married him because I love him and wanted that commitment before we had kids.

@honeylulu
For a couple planning children, marriage has less likelihood of benefiting the nonchildbearing partner. Marriage is really there to recognise and fairly compensate the unpaid labour of childbearing in the event of a divorce/split. It recognises that not everything “brought to the table” is £££££ earned.

Which is why too many men refuse to marry and have lots of baby mamas.

There is mutual benefit in the event one or the other becomes disabled, but likelihood of benefit is tipped in favour of the childbearing partner. So, yes I’d always advise a woman to refuse to have a baby with a partner until married (this goes for same sex couples too).

Without marriage, I don’t see why anyone should be prepared to make financial sacrifices for the relationship team. I.e one partner gets a job offer in a location that means the couple will be better off but may restrict the earning potential of the other partner. As a married couple they may decide that the team does better by taking the opportunity, as partners not legally tied together, what assurances does the other have? Likewise, career sacrifices for children.

@DeepaBeesKit

Maybe because they love each other?

A marriage is a dedication, a commitment.

I am sure that the 40% of couples who divorce also believed that on their wedding day.

You can be dedicated and committed without tying up your finances in a way that may leave you worse off in the case of a divorce.

No one was more traditional than I was. White church wedding, never lived with DH before marriage, etc.

But now, I'm just re-thinking the whole thing.

Would you think this is acceptable if it was the other way around and the man didn't want to marry in case he had to share?

Yes I would.

@imogen
Yeah he does half the nursery runs, half the housework, half the time off when DS is out of nursery for whatever reason. If anything hes been doing more house stuff this week as I've been under the weather but I would do the same if he was unwell.
I think the imbalance in careers is changing in society but slowly and I think more goverment and employer incentives to give dads as well mums time at home would help balance it.

My friend is a professional on about 60k pa, she married a guy on minimum wage when she was in her late forties. No dc for either. He had a mortgage on a house that she moved in to, a little terrace that’s not worth much. She owns a house a really beautiful one in a village I would imagine it’s worth a lot. In those circumstances I would not have married.

Marriage is a risk for a higher earner, man or woman, the issue is children.

One of the most significant benefits to me is what would happen in the event of serious illness or death - things like for example, my husband being able to receive my (relatively generous) pension or visa versa. Everything is set up by default because we are married.

@Dieselweasel When someone receives a pension, they can nominate whoever they want to receive it when they die.

I am in receipt of a pension as is DH and we had to nominate whoever we wanted to receive it when we die.

@IM0GEN I took the longer maternity leave (I needed it to physically recover/breastfeed) though DH did do shared parental leave at the end which really supported my return to work and I can honestly say now I have a 3 year old and another on the way my DH does 50% of the housework/care/'lifework' - he is rubbish at picking birthday gifts, but he does all the cooking and most of the cleaning day to day so I think I win! In lockdown, despite the fact I was officially on an 80% contract, we split the available working time vs toddler-minding time straight down the line. He doesn't view my career or ambitions as inferior to his, and does more night wakings, still.He may be a unicorn, but he exists, and I'm lucky enough to live in a bubble where quite a few of the dads are stepping up.

However, I entirely agree that its far from certain. I've read on here men who did 50/50 before children then downed tools. I know people who have been discriminated against in the workplace for having children based on their employers assumptions, so regardless of their actual home life there's no way around that. I also know of equal earners with no intention of stepping back from their careers who have had a chid with additional needs and in all cases it has been the mother who has dropped hours/taken time out as a carer.

So, I think given the stats, it makes sense to factor in the fact that women are more likely to be affected by having children. There are some ways you can protect yourself, but I really have personally seen all of them fail one way or another. For me, having and maintaining an equal relationship is a feminist issue, but so is marriage.

[quote Aimee1987]@imogen
Yeah he does half the nursery runs, half the housework, half the time off when DS is out of nursery for whatever reason. If anything hes been doing more house stuff this week as I've been under the weather but I would do the same if he was unwell.
I think the imbalance in careers is changing in society but slowly and I think more goverment and employer incentives to give dads as well mums time at home would help balance it.[/quote]
Well he’s a keeper !

However I disagree with you on government/ employer incentives - they are already there for both sexes. Why should men get given more money than women to stay at home with their children ?

So men who are much better off than their partners are bastards for not marrying them.

Women should never consider marriage u less they have something to gain financially from it.

And her we cry about our mysogynistic society....

Some couples want to get married due to religious reasons

@Aimee1987
I think the imbalance in careers is changing in society but slowly and I think more goverment and employer incentives to give dads as well mums time at home would help balance it.

I agree.

From my perspective, my DH I always knew would earn less than me because he’s in the nonprofit sector and I see us as a team in everything. While he doesn’t earn as much as me, he works just as hard as I do and we support each other equally. Even if we had not had DC, I would have wanted him to not be worse off than me if we split. Marriage was an easy way to make that commitment legally binding....that if we split, the distribution of assets will be done fairly no matter how much we might be hurt or resentful or hating on each other during a split. Most couples I know have gone from reasonable and caring to irrationally vindictive when they split. So I have no illusions, if we do split, I don’t assume I’ll be all calm and sweet.

@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. If no children are planned, and both partners are financially secure, then marriage is a 'nice to have'.

If you have children, imo it's essential. One partner usually takes an earnings/pension hit, and that partner is usually the woman.

The fact that she was previously a professional who earned well doesn't change the fact that she may well look at her pension 30 years later and realise it's worth half what the child's father has due to the impact of mat leave, career breaks, PT working etc.

@im0gen I didnt mean men should get more I meant that incentives should be equal. My employer offers women 6 months full pay which is great but they only offer men 2 months full pay. This is in a field where alot of women drop out of the field after having kids. I think offering men the equal time off work with the same pay would be better and may work towards equalizing the imbalance.
My partners employers offers both men and women 4 months full pay which is a better system. In terms of goverment input I think they need to increase statutory mat pay/ shared parental leave pay to reflect the cost of living something akin to the swedish system. But I do agree that's a very liberal approach that would require more taxation.

It's interesting. Marriage has generally been an institution in which men held all the power. I can see why some women might now reject it.

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

I’m just thinking through the reverse scenario. An OP comes on to say DP won’t marry me because he says I don’t earn enough and don’t bring enough financial interest to the relationship. Pretty sure most people would say LTB.

You can be dedicated and committed without tying up your finances in a way that may leave you worse off in the case of a divorce.

But not to the same level of commitment and dedication as you have in marriage. I’m not talking “until death do us part” but the commitment that you are equal partners under the law and this will be enforced by courts if necessary such that neither partner is left worse off than the other in the event of divorce.

There is no such commitment to equality in a cohabitation situation. It’s a fair weather commitment....and during a split it’s look out for #1.

@CinderellaRockafella

One of the most significant benefits to me is what would happen in the event of serious illness or death - things like for example, my husband being able to receive my (relatively generous) pension or visa versa. Everything is set up by default because we are married.

@Dieselweasel When someone receives a pension, they can nominate whoever they want to receive it when they die.

I am in receipt of a pension as is DH and we had to nominate whoever we wanted to receive it when we die.

Ok, let's say you weren't married, and you split up. Who would DH nominate to receive his pension then? Not you.

If a married couple divorces, pensions are just another one of the marital assets and can be split if considered appropriate (e.g. if the woman's pension has taken a hit due to having children).

If a woman's pension takes a hit due to having children, and she's not married, she has no financial protection at all when she splits from her partner.