Why why why do people have kids without marriage

[changedandcantchangeback]

Obviously if you earn more.. have an independent income... so NOT aimed at you..

But WHY after all these years do I see threads from economically improvised women STILL posting how they are so severely compromised ?

Is that a crime? Should we force abortions on women who don’t love their baby daddies? What about married people who hate each other? Are they ok to have kids?

thanks @Villagewaspbyke
So if a spouse dies without a will, does the surviving spouse automatically inherit everything?
I'm in Germany. AFAIK (but i am going to check this on account of my creaking great age) without a will it is 50% to surviving spouse, 50% to be divided equally between all children.

So if a spouse dies without a will, does the surviving spouse automatically inherit everything?

In the uk the spouse gets the first £270k then 50% of anything after that. Other half split between children.

I have children and am married, I would never have given up work to be a stay at home mum without this security i wouldn't live in a home owned by a partner with my children without my name on the mortgage, however I am a privileged person that has had access to a very good education and I have always been secure financially and had family support however there are more people out there that haven't had any of those things so although you may not understand why you wouldn't get married for security there are people that can barely afford rent let alone a wedding that have children because they want them (and have every right to have and want a family) and due to social limitations may not meet someone that will support them , also some people dont believe in marriage and therefore it shouldn't be so easy for men to abandon there children financially and physically, you shouldn't only have rights if you have said a few words and have a piece of paper proving it and it is disgraceful that that is the case and many other reasons that women may not want to be married and the issue is the system not the women !

villagewaspbyke
Depends on scheme. Mine is set up for spouse to automatically benefit. If I wanted someone else I’d have to take steps to sort it. My point is many don’t realise they need to nominate or don’t get around to it. If I do nothing he gets it because of marriage certificate. If we are not married and I have done nothing he gets nothing if I die. I know on mumsnet the thought is of course you’d sort paperwork but that’s not my experience. I’ve given example before of man who didn’t divorce wife he briefly was with as a young man and then lived with gf for 20 years/had kids. He died at work and wife got the monies, gf nothing. I bet there’s people on this thread not 100% sure if they’ve done all the paperwork or if their partner has.

*Robinni · 27/04/2022 12:42
BeerLoas
Own property as joint tenants
All utilities in both names
Joint bank accounts (if you want)
Father listed on birth certificate
Ensure each other is nominated beneficiary on pension and death in service policies etc.
Cost of a basic will £20
Cost of lasting power of attorney £82

Done.

(with the exception you fall outside inheritance tax exemption - currently over £325k).
Average price of a house in the UK £274,000

Add in savings, all the assets in your home which are totted up, pension pot if there and any inheritance from deceased parents…. A lot of people are coming up over the 325k….

even married people need to be reminded to have the house as joint tenants!!*

If you jointly own the property (married or not) it automatically passes to the other person ie. bypasses inheritance tax on the property. Ditto for savings account as the other person can access it.

It’s all well and good that the home can pass to partner, but what happens when they die and the kids are hit with 40% inheritance tax for anything over 325 because the parents weren’t married…. I wouldn’t fancy paying 40% tax, or my children paying it. Be totally screwed. Of course people can always transfer in life but it’s a right pain in the bum by contrast…

Isn’t it the case that a married couple have tax free allowance of £650,000 ++ to pass on tax free??

“Each spouse qualifies for the existing £325,000 nil rate band, but in addition there is currently a £125,000 allowance per person on the main residence when it's passed to a direct relative. That £125,000 is set to rise by £25,000 each year, until the 2020/21 tax year when a couple will jointly be able to pass on £1m tax-free, so long as the conditions are met, one of which is that their main residence is left to close family.”

perrysaccountants.co.uk/news/iht-marriage-exemption

Basically marriage is set to be even further incentivised by the tax man from what I see there.

@Brefugee up to £270,000 it goes to husband on intestacy with the remainder split between children and spouse in England.

@Dixiechickonhols - death in service have to be written in discretionary trust so it passes outside the estate. So no one has any right to it (hence discretion) whether spouse or not. Generally they give it to whoever you say but they don’t have to nor do they have to give it to a spouse though.

I always left mine to dds even when I was with partner.

Because low earning men are also entitled to love and a family ? What an awful thing to say and very gold diggerish. Would you say low earning women aren't entitled to a family ?

This post raises an important question… Why are so many women willing to have children with men who are deadbeat and a waste of space - no assets and no likelihood of ever having assets….. What is the point of this? If he can’t wipe his own arse how on Earth is he supposed to provide for a family? Mystifying…. So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important. If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter.

Have you heard yourself?

We are a low earning family, my other half works as a supervisor in retail and I'm a self employed cleaner. Somebody like you wouldn't last a week working manual labour so don't you dare look down your nose at those of us that do. My OH is a fantastic father, he's very present and involved in family life which is more than can be said for alot of men in the demographic you deem to be worthy of having children.

Respectfully, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Pompous.

I have not read tft.

I am just wondering how a woman who has a child with someone. Is better off marrying them . If the said partner already holds the purse strings and she don't work but raises the children.

The husband will still hold the purse strings so no difference unless she gets a divorce. But that cost money which she don't have.

Maybe I am missing something here, but if someone is in a situation where they have no financial income and rely on the other surely the worse thing to do would marry them. ( who pays for this marriage, but both parties have to agree).

I am confused about this question.

Marriage whilst lovely and all that is a legal binding contract between two parties.

Often the man don't want to get married to protect his assets - I get it you have a child together it's both. But this never gets asked about the unmarried couple in which the woman works and is sahd.

I never married my sons dad, thank god. No bad between us but it would have just been another legal cost for divorce ( together 8 years).

Why didn't I marry him - quite simple he didn't step up as a partner.

I thought women voted for the right to choose there life.

Sorry if any offer is not meant I really am just very confused about how marrying your child's biological parent protects you financially.

@Felix0204

Me: Why are so many women willing to have children with men who are deadbeat and a waste of space

You: Because low earning men are also entitled to love and a family

I am not talking about low earning men - my DH is low earning, working two jobs at times, and doing his best to move forward. I said deadbeat and waste of space ie proactively not trying to earn fa and content to sit on the brew.

My point was for MOST people marriage is worthwhile, because there is SOMETHING accumulated - low, medium and high earners - and legal protections are required in the event of death or divorce for both the spouses and children.

The only case where this wouldn’t be is if somebody is constantly on the breadline or sitting on benefits and I don’t understand how the could be attractive to anyone wanting children in the first place. Not talking about buying a yacht, I mean paying for food and sticking the heating on!

Working class and DH is low earner. Was a carer for 15yrs.

Not looking down my nose at anyone….

Thabj you very much for your completely inaccurate appraisal. And delightful turn of phrase…. 🙄

I apologise then, Robinni. I took your post as looking down on low earning WC people as thats how it came across with the 'on the tills in poundstretcher" comment.

@Verity226 We have been on many tills ourselves… apologies if took offence at pound stretcher - Knew of a few examples to work there who fit the “deadbeat” mould (actively trying to avoid work/doing anything for family) so perhaps why it came to mind. Please poundstretcher employees do not lynch me, I’m sure many are very admirable people. I do prefer B&M though😁

Why are so many women willing to have children with men who are deadbeat and a waste of space - no assets and no likelihood of ever having assets…..
What is the point of this? If he can’t wipe his own arse how on Earth is he supposed to provide for a family?
Mystifying….
So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important.
If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter.

I saw this raised a few hackles, but i understood it to be about 2 things.

1. deadbeat dads (can be rich, I think if I've understood correctly? but are the ones who do nothing, leave it all to the mum and if the relationship ends do nothing and pay nothing?)

2. marriage is important for higher earners, not necessarily for lower earners? It's one way of looking at it, but i don't agree.

I do think that in a partnership if one is vastly more wealthy, or has many more assets than the other (can be the wife, of course) then the best way to protect their assets is either not to marry or have a watertight pre-nup (are they legall binding?) But in that kind of relationship the less wealthy person is better making sure they are married because even with a pre-nup which restricts payment to half of assets/wealth accrued during the marriage, that leaves them slightly better off than without a marriage.

This whole topic is really interesting and vitally important for people to understand how life works, outside of falling in love and having a family.

@Brefugee yes clearly everyone on MN needs to pre-empt all potential sensitivities and misconstructions when posting - hard to do!

Yes, definition of deadbeat accurate. Of course rich men can be so too, however if you have marriage or other legal protections then, by and large, in the event of death or divorce you will get what you are due.

My initial comment re. Why women go for deadbeat guys (the sort to avoid CM, spend money on themselves rather than kids etc.) - I genuinely don’t understand why the bar is set so low - accumulate nothing and no point in getting married as nothing there.

Most working class people I know either own their own houses or have aspiration to buy their council house in future. Or they have a car or other things considered assets. Very few are in the position where legal protection would be null and void.

If you go back to the original post I responded to

@Felix0204 said

“If a man you marry has no assets then marriage doesn't benefit you. You would just get CMS if you divorced.”

My response admittedly needed better punctuation… should have read with question marks.. punctuation matters people 😫

So on the premise that you reproduce with someone who is semi capable of getting a decentish job. Then marriage is important?

If he is on the tills at pound stretcher or getting job seekers then it doesn’t matter?!

Which brings me to your second point

Marriage and the legal protections it gives are important for all - low, middle and high incomes. The system is highly biased towards married couples. And while I sincerely hope that changes to give equality to those who are wives in all but name, right now it isn’t the case, so important that other measures are taken….

It’s a shame it can’t just be about falling in love and having a family, but I guess that is adult life isn’t it, piles of paperwork and being sensible.

Re. Pre nup/post nup they are not legally binding as they would be in US. But if you get one drawn up and filed with solicitor then they are looked upon favourably by the court and are unlikely to be disregarded. Not cast iron but pretty good.

Agree- this is an awful thing to say. And deeply sexist- men can be great fathers without being wealthy and ditto for mothers.

I think you judge women very poorly. Marriage only benefits the poorer partner. That’s not always the woman whatever you think. If you are the wealthier (even if the main carer of kids) you can end up worse off being married.

You seem to think that no matter how low earning the man, women could never hope to earn any more. You are absolutely wrong- about 25% of women earn more than their partners. And not because they are big losers who couldn’t get a better man - it’s because women can and do earn good salaries doing responsible jobs.

My exh was a big earner.

Still is. Over £100k per annum. He provides £56 per month because he's self employed.

He doesn't see our daughter. He phones her maybe once a month

Marriage did not benefit me. Or her.

But he has parental rights yet he doesn't see her, provide properly for her.

What has being married to her father done for her or me?

Waste of time.

@Villagewaspbyke if you scroll up and read full explanation…

I am the bigger earner in our house so well know that women can earn more….

And I have been very proactive in protecting myself, and my DH via marriage and other legal measures. This isn’t just about legal protections for women, the men matter too! If the shit ever hits the fan we know where we stand. We wanted to make sure there would always be respect and fairness.

Another poster said if a man has no assets then no point in marrying them.

I responded to this with incredulity, but stupidly didn’t put proper punctuation in.

My DH had no assets at the point of marriage. But works hard and contributes equally to the household/DC. I felt there was a point to marrying him, he is incredibly loving and supportive.

My comment was never a dig at low earning men…

Maybe some of them are more successful/ have a better career than you

This is what we did.

We got married when our baby was a year old.