To think of you really want to be financially independent you shouldn’t get married

[LovelyYellowLabrador]

Been eating dirty John on Netflix and reading comments afterwards
Mainly along the lines of she should have remained independent
But surely if your married your not financially independent
I mean if your dh racks up loads of debt he’s going to take you down too ?

He would still have got his promotion if I worked full time so I certainly don’t have the attitude of “me being at home enabled my husband to advance in his career” which I see being said on MN a lot. My working hours had no bearing on him going up his career ladder.

This is the case for me as well. I work part time but by choice. We would have just used more nursery if I had been full time. And we were already splitting childcare because DH did compressed hours for a while and we alternate emergency days off.

@TheMeditativeRose

Interdependence and team work is a thing.

DH and I earned about the same when we met.

I developed a chronic illness and no longer work. But I do my best to support him with things like cooking, organising our lives. He does the lion’s hate of the cleaning though.

Now he earns nearly eight times the amount he did when we met. He is very open about the fact he couldn’t do that without my support. He’s also very open about how much motivation he gets from the fact he sees it as his job to protect me financially as I am unable to work.

Now we are in a financial position in our mid forties that, even if we split up, we’d both be ok for life.

You can with trust and team work end up in a place you could never have ended up alone, even with challenging circumstances (in my case a decade of illness).

I once saw a contemporary dance piece that demonstrates that very clearly. It focussed on moves where the two dancers supported one another. It wasn’t about traditional lifts where the larger/stronger person lifted the smaller one. It was about balances and moving against one another in a supporting way. Each dancer was both supporter and supported, and in some movements/positions they were both supporting and supported at the same time.

If we’d both been pursuing our careers in the way we did when we met, we’d both progressed, but I doubt we’d be earning combined what DH earns himself.

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book called the Two Income Trap which looks at the pressures people feel in the modern world with stagnant wages and rising costs. Basically in the face of that it’s better to have one person who earns the family a lot of money and one person who saves the family a lot of money. It doesn’t have to be along traditional lines.

Given how hostile and competitive the world can be financially, especially at the moment, I think being part of a team makes a good life and financial independence more achievable, not less. As a society we’ve gone a bit too far down the road of individualist thinking. Life is easier and better when it’s not a case of everyone for themselves.

@TheMeditativeRose I am very happy for you that your marriage has worked and your togetherness has worked out the way it has.

You talk about hostility and competitiveness? That extends in todays world beyond financials and well into the realms of how people feel entitled to behave in life, in partnerships etc. Look at the amount of threads on here time and again where women are being sideswiped financially after serious long term marriages/ relationships.

I don’t think it’s marriage alone that removes financial independence but the choices made within it. If one party chooses to actively take a role that lessens their financial contribution to the marriage, so be it. That choice in itself doesn’t necessarily lessen their financial independence. What lessens it is whether the higher earner is contributing to two pensions, not just one. Two sets of ISA’s, not just one. Whether the lower / zero earner spouse is getting their assets shored up alongside the higher earner spouse. Fairly reflecting their contribution to the household and giving them their pot that cannot be spent / gambled away.

In many ways marriage also helps with financial independence in the event one spouse passes with the entire estate passing tax free to the surviving spouse. But macabre but true.

In my situation (already divorced with children and zero intention of having any more), for me another marriage would absolutely impact my financial independence. In England there is no such thing as a rock solid prenup. Yes documents can be drawn up to try and protect assets, but the rules need to be closely adhered to and the longer term the marriage the more at risk that prenup becomes.

As such I won’t ever remarry. I’ve worked too hard to get myself back to financial stability post divorce. And as much as it is a competitive world financially, there are also a lot of divorced men who having taken a hit financially would think nothing of finding a financially stable woman and trying to get themselves in a position where they financially benefit in some way.

Sorry but my trust bar in other people (romantically) financially is very low.

@sst1234

Many men think the same. Hence the many posts from women on here complaining that the father of their children, someone they’ve live for a long time will not commit to marriage. Personally I think women gain from marriage more than they lose. I know it’s not quiet an equivalence but it’s more important that women stay self sufficient and independent after children, rather then relying on a partner.

@sst1234

Absolutely incorrect.

The 'LOWER EARNER' gains more. Women overall gain less because marriage means more wife work.

So to be happy - don't compromise your income and don't marry.

@TheMeditativeRose

Elizabeth Warren clearly doesn't understand divorce rates..

@Avarua

There's no such thing as financial independence while children are young. None. It is a fiction. The law is set up to protect the vulnerable party: the one who bears children.

It's fine to be independent if you don't have kids or dont anticipate kids. If you do, you're a mug thinking you're independent from their father.

Depends what is meant by financially independent.. obviously we have a house together so we are financially linked there. But if we split I earn sufficiently that I can have sole custody if he didn't want shared care, can support us all and not need anything from him. I think that's what many mean by financially independent when married. That they don't actually need the partner for money even if during the marriage things are shared.

I'm unmarried and have been with DP for nearly 20 years. We have two DC, we both work and earn similar salaries although I was part-time for a few years. Financially we are both pretty independent. However, we are considering getting married now that we approach 50 as we are thinking more and more about what happens when either of us die. Although we are both sole recipients of the other's will, things just seem more complicated if you are not married or in a civil partnership. I am not DP's next of kin, for example. We both have savings accounts etc in our own names and from the experience of others, these are difficult enough to access after death even if you are married, let alone if you are not. It is possible to replicate much of the legal side of marriage if you are willing to spend time and money with a solicitor but frankly it will be cheaper, easier and quicker for us to spend an hour or so at the local registry office.

@ExhaustedMumma

Very interesting reflections *@TheMeditativeRose*.

I do think that, if you have one person whose career has huge earning potential, their path to success is much easier if they are free to pursue it if they have a partner who doesn’t work and manages their lives. In that case, of course marriage protects the person who sacrifices their earning potential.

In our household my DH is great and he does more than his far share. He earns well but I earn more than double even being part time. I’m grateful for his support but I’d have gotten much further in my career if he’d done it all whilst I worked! Many of my male colleagues have a wife who does just that, whilst I still have to pull my weight domestically. There’s no way that my DH would sacrifice his career, earning potential and years of training to do that though - whereas many women do this without question.

I agree with this. I'm surrounded by men at my level with SAH wives. My husband is absolutely a 50% parent but I still do my share, even though I have been the higher earner throughout our twenty year relationship.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure he is about to overtake me in income. My career has pretty much stagnated while I have a small child, even though I am still working more than full time hours. I'm pretty sure there are some unconscious biases at work (and maybe some conscious ones!).

I wouldn't say you shouldn't, as you might have other priorities such as estate planning so it's about what ranks where. But it's true that being married to someone in England makes it harder to keep finances separate. Marriage is a legal contract.

Marriage needs to be considered as a legal, binding contract. Not as a fancy wedding day or romantic gesture.

I love DP but I earn triple what he does and my house only has a 35% mortgage. I also have a car and savings whereas he has basically no assets. No plans for children. Not a chance I'll be marrying him anytime soon. I might consider it if we get to retirement age or one of us becomes terminally ill.