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 felt much like this.

In the end, we decided to do it partly for boring tax efficiency reasons (one of us earns considerably more, worked out better) and partly because DH really wanted to do the party bit with the little family he has left.

We're not having children so that wasn't a consideration, nobody has changed their name, and it hasn't changed our lives otherwise.

I think it's difficult, and you need to take care. I'm afraid that following the sudden breakdown (well, sudden for me, turns out he was up to all sorts for over a year before I found out), I don't trust people to honour their previously loved-up commitments.

My ex (unmarried) is trying to pay as little as humanly possible, and to diddle me out of as much of my fair share of what we accumulated together as he can. I made a perfectly reasonable offer, and we could have had it all wrapped up with just a couple of grand in legal fees, instead it's going to last at least a year and probably cost us both 20odd thousand each, and I'd lay odds that the courts will basically decide what I suggested (I looked at it all ways round. I only wanted maintenance for the kids, not me, and a 50/50 split of property - my solicitor is telling me to go for more like 2/3rds - so the court can make a compromise and I still end up where I want to be)

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

I would give the same advice to men or women. Including 'if you are the higher earner, want kids and exke to the other to take a hit on their career to look after the joint kids, without marriage.....you are a dick'.

Marriage doesn't suit all circumstances and where neither person is taking a financial hit for a joint venture (such as kids or to be a trailing spouse) I wouldn't see the need for marriage. And wouldn't judge the higher earner for not marrying.

Again, everyone should look at their own circumstances and decide for themsleevs

@Aimee1987 - Next of Kin doesn't mean anything legally. It's literally just "Who to contact in an emergency". It's Power of Attorney that is the legal role.

She should get married, but arrange a prenup which ringfences things like gifts and inheritances and what they earned before marriage, while leaving earnings within marriage in the joint marital pot. They will both need independent legal advice for this or it will hold no water.

"Fully intend to keep on working" is fine up to the point where a child has special needs and then...

On the bright side, I don't have DC, but we got married (eventually) to ensure each other got a widow(er)'s pension from our defined benefit pension schemes and to avoid IHT, and then one of us had a shares windfall and saved some capital gains tax by transferring some of the shares over to the other (and then transferring the money back after a sale) - so we've made back the cost of the marriage ceremony already.

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

I guess you could say exactly the same thing about men in similar circumstances and yet they are served their arse on a plate on this site !.

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

If they intend to start a family and she intends to take maternity leave and work fewer paid hours to care for the children while he carries on in fulltime paid employment, then oh yes, she needs to be married. Or if they don't intend exactly that but it happens anyway.

Your own solid finances don't usually last beyond children. Couples have to make decisions for the good of the family which mean they aren't financially independent and equal any more. Marriage gives some protection to the person who gives up more of their solid finaces.

[quote Sylvvie]@Aimee1987 - Next of Kin doesn't mean anything legally. It's literally just "Who to contact in an emergency". It's Power of Attorney that is the legal role.[/quote]
Next of Kin does mean a lot legally if the person dies without a will.
“But when someone dies without writing a will – known as dying intestate – there are is a defined order of next of kin relationships that determine how the estate will be received, or shared out.

Spouses and civil partners are defined as next of kin when someone dies intestate. This included if a couple was living apart, but not legally separated. Spouses and civil partners will inherit all of the person’s personal belongings, the first £250,000 of their estate – and a half share of any further wealth in the estate.

Children and grandchildren follow the order of precedence in terms of next of kin when someone dies intestate, followed by other blood relatives.

Surviving long-term life partners, who not married or a civil partnership, are not recognised as next of kin – and can’t inherit under the rules of intestacy. Nor, too, can in-laws.”
www.funeralguide.co.uk/help-resources/when-someone-dies/next-of-kin-all-you-need-to-know

If she’s having kids, getting married is sensible. She’ll most likely be the one taking maternity leave and, if necessary, working part time or reduced hours for the sake of childcare. If her partner ups and leaves her she won’t be entitled to anything in lieu of those lost earnings unless their married.

Of course, maybe she won’t reduce her hours in any way. And maybe she will be lucky and won’t have her earning power reduced by having children. Or maybe her partner will be the one to reduce his hours. But marriage is the safest way to ensure that even if the relationship goes tits up after children, the parent who took time off to raise the kids isn’t financially penalised.

@MadamMedea

If she’s having kids, getting married is sensible. She’ll most likely be the one taking maternity leave and, if necessary, working part time or reduced hours for the sake of childcare. If her partner ups and leaves her she won’t be entitled to anything in lieu of those lost earnings unless their married.

Of course, maybe she won’t reduce her hours in any way. And maybe she will be lucky and won’t have her earning power reduced by having children. Or maybe her partner will be the one to reduce his hours. But marriage is the safest way to ensure that even if the relationship goes tits up after children, the parent who took time off to raise the kids isn’t financially penalised.

So what do you mean?

Do you mean that in the event of a divorce, if a spouse has had reduced earning power owing to bringing up children, the court would award them a higher share of their joint assets?

I earn more than my DP and I put more money in when we bought our house than he did. Call me crazy but I want to marry him because I love him, not for his money.

@PlanDeRaccordement If someone has a Will this deals with who gets what on their death.

Also, inheritance tax kicks in at over £325K. It's only an issue if the estate is in excess of that.

Next of kin is meaningless, as it's simply a contact in cases of life and death. Childless or unmarried adults could name a sibling or cousin if they wanted a blood relative.

Power of Attorney is what is important.

I have known several older couples who were together for 35- 40 years and only married when one of them became ill, or much older, in order to simplify tax matters.

@TuftyMarmoset

I earn more than my DP and I put more money in when we bought our house than he did. Call me crazy but I want to marry him because I love him, not for his money.

But from what you say he doesn't have much money!

I don't get all this starry eyed stuff when marriage is really a legal contract.

My husband died in June, had we been partners, things would have been far more difficult from an admin point of view as you are not next of kin and have limited rights
Do you get bereavement allowance if you are not married ? not sure

OP I agree with you. There is an assumption on MN that every unmarried mother is at a disadvantage because they earn less than their DP, have long gaps in their career due to maternity leave, will be shafted and left financially worse off in the case of a breakup. I have yet to see a convincing argument on here for marriage when a woman is the higher earner and owns all assets. Can anyone explain the benefits to a woman in that case?

Do you mean that in the event of a divorce, if a spouse has had reduced earning power owing to bringing up children, the court would award them a higher share of their joint assets?

Yes it does. And there are no joint assets outside marriage unless specifically legally documented and specified. Example girlfriend sells her home and moves in with boyfriend. He never adds her to the deeds, so they are not joint tenants or tenants in common. If they split, she has no claim on his house because it is solely in his name. If they were married, even if the house is still in only his name it is considered a joint asset and she has a claim on it.

[quote CinderellaRockafella]@PlanDeRaccordement If someone has a Will this deals with who gets what on their death.

Also, inheritance tax kicks in at over £325K. It's only an issue if the estate is in excess of that.

Next of kin is meaningless, as it's simply a contact in cases of life and death. Childless or unmarried adults could name a sibling or cousin if they wanted a blood relative.

Power of Attorney is what is important.

I have known several older couples who were together for 35- 40 years and only married when one of them became ill, or much older, in order to simplify tax matters.[/quote]
As I said, next of kin is NOT legally meaningless if the person dies without a will and this is not uncommon....the news is littered with relatively young people dying in car crashes with no will.

He actually had a fairly sizeable inheritance recently @CinderellaRockafella, which we are using for house things. He’s also not with me for my money (he is the most frugal person alive). Other reasons I want to marry him include wanting us to be an official family unit and wanting us and our children to all have the same last name. Not an issue for someone I know whose girlfriend already has the same last name as him!

Do you mean that in the event of a divorce, if a spouse has had reduced earning power owing to bringing up children, the court would award them a higher share of their joint assets?

It’s more that in the event of a divorce the starting point is 50:50 - including things like house, ISAs and pensions, whoever’s name they are in. There may be spousal maintenance awarded too (to recognise the limited earning power of the SAHP) although this is rarer these days and usually has a time limit.

But if you are unmarried and split then assets are not split 50:50 but on whose name they are in. So a woman who has not been working, or has compromised her earning potential to spend more time looking after DC, and so has limited pension/investments in her name (and maybe not even house in her name in some cases) will be worse off on a split compared with a married woman in the same position.

Of course if you ensure there is no greater impact on your career or pension than on your DP’s career as a result of having children, and/or you ensure assets are all in joint names, then this is not an issue. But most women do find their career is disproportionately affected.

I agree that independently wealthy women don’t need marriage.

I think they need to have the discussion about whose career is going to take the childcare hit - someone will - if she’s absolutely confident it’s not going to be her - and that she’s not going to change her mind after the birth - then fine, but nobody really knows what’s around the corner.

She's planning on having kids, so yes.

I got married to my husband after 19 years of being together, ten years engaged and 1 dd (8). I married him because I love him and can't imagine being with anyone else.

I ("professional woman") out-earn DH x 3.

We have 2DCs.

DH took 2-3 years (largely) out of the workforce when DCs were under 3. I took 6 and 3 mo mat leave respectively.

We got married 3 years ago (after DCs and house purchase!).

I appreciate we are not typical, we both felt we'd already made sufficient lifelong commitment to each other in having a family and making a home-for-life together so weren't that fussed about marriage: but we did get married, and my reasons were:
a) protect DHs interest in our family assets (which yes, I might have PAID more cash for, but he has contributed to in his commitment to raising our children and supporting my career by doing so
b) streamline insurance/pension/death admin
c) inheritance tax

We had a paperwork "ceremony" - neither of us are 'wedding' people.

Yes - if our relationship fails down the line, he will be entitled to more if "my" wealth than if we weren't married, but i will have done right by him in respect of our current standing as partners in life.

It allows for things to change as well, I recently made a risky career move (left a secure corporate job to set up a new business) and the fact that we BOTH have the legal protection of marriage vis-a-vis (mostly) the equity in our property being equal in the eyes of the law would have worked in MY favour if I earn less for a few years.

Marriage is a legal and economic partnership. If you look at the statistics of who is still choosing to marry, you will see that it is high earning professional couples. They also have lower rates of divorce. Marriage is rapidly becoming the domain of the economic upper classes.

You can find all sorts of studies hand-wringing over what this is doing to society because this group is becoming less connected to the rest of society and harder to break into. Those marriages yield children who will be raised in privilege, specifically groomed to enter professional careers, and statistically expected to go on to marry other people of their same class.

While she could try to mimic the legal framework and economic protections marriage provides, your family member is probably best off just looking at the success of her peers and following the trend.