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?

No, no point at all, apart from inheritance tax. My partner and I are genuinely equal, we split maternity/ paternity, we do split housework and childcare 50/50, we split bills but keep our own money and both work part time. We have wills and are each other’s next of kin. Don’t plan on leaving, but hey if I do at least it’s not going to cost me the price of several Caribbean holidays. I like my life, I have financial independence and I don’t especially want to be a wife. The idea that the woman is always more secure in marriage isn’t always the case, and I think fewer and fewer people are going to take the marriage path.

By that logic, my DH has nothing to gain by marrying me. I have no assets other than my pension. He had a house and a job that paid much much more than mine. I think it just felt like a natural next step and confirmation of our commitment.

I do remember working on an estate for a woman who lost her partner of 30-ish years. We had to argue for her to be entitled to his very generous old style pension. She also wanted to raise a claim against the hospital and wasn't able to bring a claim for herself because in his final two years she had left for several months to look after her sister. I think the rules were you had to be married or cohabiting for 2 years prior to death. The hospitals solicitors argued that she didn't. Not sure how it turned out as I left before the claim went any further but it did add a lot of stress to an already awful situation.

CinderellaRockafella
I think marriage is smart if you are planning to have children as everyone has mentioned because of the likely change in your income/employment as a result. Marriage is like insurance for you because your 'job' is then taking care of your family.

Is this not rather outdated?

I wish it were, but if you look at the statistics regarding the gender(sex) gap there is a clear motherhood penalty still affecting most women. The following was a report published only last year...2020.

“The parenthood penalty

For men in the UK aged 35-45, having one or two children is associated with higher median weekly earnings.
In contrast, having children has a clear negative impact on the median earnings of women. For women across the UK aged 35-45, median weekly pay of those with two children in the household is 26.1% lower than among women with no children. In contrast, men with two children have a median weekly pay 21.8% higher than men with no children.
In London, this “motherhood penalty” is even higher at 30.0%. At the same time, the “fatherhood premium” is much lower in the capital at just 2.3%.
The key driver of the “motherhood penalty” for weekly pay is a sharp decline in hours worked among women. While male median working hours are the same among men with no children, one child or two children, female working hours decline dramatically following childbirth.
Childcare costs in London are higher than any other part of the country. Conceivably, this might be a contributing factor to higher levels of female non-participation in the labour market in London. In Inner London, full-time nursery care costs on average £343 per week. This compares with £269 in Outer London and £233 in Great Britain.”
www.smf.co.uk/publications/parenthood-penalty-exploring-gender-family-pay-london/

@Nightbringer 'So you only have to date someone, for 2 years, to have legal obligations to them? Casually dating? Exclusively dating?

Not sure that's correct. But that sounds awful. I definitely wouldn't want my finances tied to someone I had been with only 2 years. Certainly wouldn't want to be legally tied to them.'

☝🏻 yes you have to be with someone for 2 years in a genuine relationship (don't even have to live together all the time) to have the same rights as a married couple.
Doesn't sounds awful to me, quite the opposite. 2 YEARS is a hell of a long time to decide you don't want to be with that person. As a woman in mid-30s I don't want a man to spend two years with me and then decide 'he's not feeling it' and go off with someone else. Make your mind up sooner mate 😄

If you don't want to be tied up you can write a financial agreement (pre-nup) after two years and keep everything separate.

@trappedsincesundaymorn
From Australian google search (as your sister seemed to be misinformed):

De facto couples have the same social security rights as married couples. That means if you separate from your de facto partner and you have a dependent child, you could qualify for assistance. You may also qualify for a benefit if you have dependent children and your partner dies.

De facto = 2+ years together.

@VodselForDinner

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 think this sums it up really.

Plus pregnant and screwed is sadly still not uncommon - happend to me and Dsis and the mummy track is also infurriatingly not always a myth so despite being a professional with good income motherhood can had a detrimental impact even if her priorities don't change - and a child may well change priorities for both of them.

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

Not in every scheme. Both of us have public sector pensions and we had to send our marriage certificate with the nomination forms.

No benefits that I can see, especially if she has a better pension.

[quote luckyJasmin]@Nightbringer 'So you only have to date someone, for 2 years, to have legal obligations to them? Casually dating? Exclusively dating?

Not sure that's correct. But that sounds awful. I definitely wouldn't want my finances tied to someone I had been with only 2 years. Certainly wouldn't want to be legally tied to them.'

☝🏻 yes you have to be with someone for 2 years in a genuine relationship (don't even have to live together all the time) to have the same rights as a married couple.
Doesn't sounds awful to me, quite the opposite. 2 YEARS is a hell of a long time to decide you don't want to be with that person. As a woman in mid-30s I don't want a man to spend two years with me and then decide 'he's not feeling it' and go off with someone else. Make your mind up sooner mate 😄

If you don't want to be tied up you can write a financial agreement (pre-nup) after two years and keep everything separate. [/quote]
So you can't casually date someone in Australia for 2 years, even if both are happy just casually dating? You must go get the equivalent of a pre-nup? That is truly awful.

I think you are forgetting that not everyone is looking for someone to marry. Your assumption its a good thing is based solely on the assumption that couples are only together to see if it leads to marriageand sharing of finances. And also that women can't propose and wait around for men.

If someone preference is to not involve the law in their relationship, why should they have to then go (and pay) for a prenup. if you want a legally recognised relationship. You can. You get married.

I appreciate that's awesome where you are. But I would find that awful. No long term relationship unless you are OK to be toed to the person.

Its all about perspective. But married by default, to me, is something I would never want.