To be amazed how much women benefit financially from marriage

[Singleparent78]

I've been single most of my adult life, worked FT and built up a good career but despite this... I'm always struck how much better off women who are married are than me.

It's not just about the merging together of two salaries, but about how much easier financial life is when you have the benefit of a man's higher average income, giving many women a lifestyle they could never afford on their own salaries.

Consider:

• the many women I work with on low salaries or working part-time who are living much nicer lifestyles than I as they have a man significantly supplementing them.

• the married women I know at 45+ who have moved to part-time or stopped working as they have accrued significant savings with their dh but, critically, their dh is now a high earner who can pay for both of them.

• the girls from school who didn't go onto further education, got married soon out of school and haven't worked at all or a bit of p-time - they mostly live in nice houses and cars, have enjoyed nice holidays etc. There hasn't been much 'penalty' for not being independent or not having a career.

All in all these women, by way of marriage, seem to have an easier go than solo me slogging it out for 30 years working FT and trying my best to be independent.... like the teachers at school told us girls to be!

I understand: all the constraints on women to generate their own income esp the gender pay gap and the impact of childrearing; that the above scenarios don't apply to all couples; that I'm assuming a heterosexual set up; that women contribute within marriages in other way than bringing in income; and that assets in a marriage are shared as is any income that comes into a marriage. I know people might think I'm being anti-women for challenging women's choices or women's rights or just plain bitter...

Still, AIBU to wonder:.......Is it not depressing that the best or most common way for women to be financially comfortable or create wealth is still through marriage and the merging of assets with a man?

I will be honest and say I've financially benefitted massively through marriage and in particular, being a SAHM. Met DH when I was 25. I have a degree and was doing a PT Masters. But I stopped working after we had our first and have never gone back. I think DH would have been financially successful to a lesser degree if I'd been working as well and relying in childcare, but to a far lesser extent.

He is an entrepreneur, so on retrospect, it was risky being totally reliant on him for the first ten years with young children. Not to mention, he always has money in investments and the City Index and thirds are subject to a lot of volatility. He is involved in so many companies, it's often felt like spinning plates - when one is doing well, there's trouble elsewhere and so on. But I think if I'd been working as well, it would have been too much. Maybe we would have not made it?

20 years on since we got married, I can see the pros and cons. I sometimes think it's a shame I never really used my degrees. On the other hand, I am very conscious that I've had a very privileged life. I've been able to focus on the kids 100% without the distraction of a job. I've helped them a lot academically and the eldest is now off to Oxford. I've had time to myself increasingly and the energy to explore other interests. I think our set-up has worked because I have never had to worry about money and DH has never had to worry about the kids. In this way, we have facilitated each other. I think, as a family, we are better off because DH being able to really focus meant he came into a lot of money following the sale of a company which has secured the kids future to the extent they will never have to worry financially either. But I realise that relying in him was a gamble nevertheless. To be honest, it's not something I planned, it just kind of happened and I was too busy with three kids to think about it!

These not 'thirds!'

I certainly don't dispute that biology is real (and I never implied that it was). I just believe that, as you yourself have acknowledged, biology doesn't have to be limiting in the way that some women seem to think it is.

this is the thing! I don't think it's limiting.

Why do you perceive it as limiting?

Bingo! Only took c.200 posts for someone to tell me the answer is to get married! Thanks @FrancescaContini

@Singleparent78 I’ve never seen working class women do the part time/sahm thing because hubby earns more…. Generally the hubby is on a par with them.

What I’ve seen them do is do part time/sahm because financially it is more beneficial with tax credits family top ups and so on.

Agree 100% @Singleparent78 And it's funny how there's an amazing number of women on here who earn waaaaaaay more than their husbands (some 4 X more,) and also a high proportion of single women who earn ooooodles of money and have a wonderful lavish lifestyle. The reality for many single women is they DO struggle financially, and married women ARE much better off financially. Parallel world of mumsnet strikes again!

I don't earn masses, because I only work part time 16 hours - 2 days a week, and get £200 a week net pay. DH picks up more than me, coz he works 4 days (32 hours a week.) I have worked part time since I was 28. 2 days a week. Would never go full time if you paid me.

We have low outgoings (no mortgage,) and a reasonable income (maybe £35K between us - me £10K for 16 hours a week, and him £25K for 32 hours,) and whilst we are not rolling in it, we are comfortable. If we had a £700 car bill, it would pinch but we'd have the money to pay for it without suffering financially. We could book a holiday abroad tomorrow for a week, and have some decent spending money, and not suffer financially. We can buy clothes and shoes and booze and go out for meals and drinks... Not rich people but comfortable.

If I lived alone, I would be brassick, OR I would have to work full time. I work 2 days a week from home and have tons of time to myself for my hobbies, and family, and friends.

I wouldn't swap places with someone single for all the tea in China. Much happier, and better off financially in a couple/marriage.

Not always. I divorced after 20 years, earned 10x my husband, he got 59% of our assets, no support of the children, not even practical - not even had them one night at his house after the divorce (although we both always worked full time and did have a fair division of domestic stuff at home during the marriage).

I don't.

I have literally just said that I don't believe that biology has to be limiting. Did you not read that?

I am certainly aware that some women feel limited by their biology. That they feel that they somehow have to make a choice between motherhood and career etc. Thankfully, I have never felt that I have to make that choice and I am confident that my daughter won't have to make that choice either.

I don’t know why you find it so surprising? Two people in a household will generally be more secure and have lower costs than someone on their own. Once children are in the mix that is magnified.

in terms of wealth, at a household level, potentially will be inheritances from two sides so again would expect a married woman to accumulate more wealth.

in terms of our household, my husband out-earns me by a lot. That has changed my priorities career-wise. Our life would not be enhanced by us both doing crazy jobs.

I do agree with you to an extent that my life is enhanced because my husband earns well. But he probably wouldn’t have married me if I hadn’t been educated and career minded when we first met. One of my friends has married a bit of a waster and her life is much more stressful as she basically does role of primary parent as well as primary earner.

• more beneficial Or makes no odds. ie. Going out to work full time 40hrs would be 20k on £9.50 an hr, about £17,500 after tax/NI, then take off childcare and additional travel of X thousand. Working part time 20hrs would be about 10k, then they get a tax credits/UC payment to make it up by 3-5k if hubby also low earner. it’s not that amazing that many in this bracket with children are only working part time, it is simple maths. Why if the given income is the same after childcare deductions etc would you work an extra 20hrs?

Can you outline the barriers for me please like I'm an idiot?

Thanks.

Sorry I seem to have not communicated what I meant properly.

Can I ask you another way?

When you said 'limited by our biology' What exactly did you mean? We can do more things than men can, not less. How is our biology limiting?

• more beneficial Or makes no odds. ie. Going out to work full time 40hrs would be 20k on £9.50 an hr, about £17,500 after tax/NI, then take off childcare and additional travel of X thousand. Working part time 20hrs would be about 10k, then they get a tax credits/UC payment to make it up by 3-5k if hubby also low earner. it’s not that amazing that many in this bracket with children are only working part time, it is simple maths. Why if the given income is the same after childcare deductions etc would you work an extra 20hrs?

I agree. I was on a good salary before I got married but since merging our finances I am in a much better position with things like pension, savings, paying off mortgage faster etc. and generally have a higher standard of living. However the same is the same for him. I think it’s fairly obvious that a double incomes generally translate into improved standard of living (from a financial perspective) for both parties, not just women.

DH earns less than 1/5 of what I do. Marriage is a financial catastrophe for me, but morally the right thing to do.

The premise is flawed.

Parenthood is the circumstance that appears to continue to reduce women's earning power. It's not women versus men. it's "women who are not parents plus seemingly all men" on one side versus "women who are parents".

It is not just the coupling of two people, it is the way women tend to accept that it's up to them to find that parenting reduces their earning power and it is accepted that this will be the impact of parenting on earning power.

"Women who are not parents, and seemingly all men" do not experience this impact on their earning power. Or on their initial ambition to build a career.

How many men has anyone met whose ambition from very early days is to have children and who rather than look for a career to achieve financial independence, are happy to do jobs which essentially fill in time in work roles until they have children.

The impacts on "women who are parents" do of course differ widely. However, vanishingly few "women who are parents" have not found their earning power to be impacted by their parenthood.

Not sure why OP did not recognise the difference between 'women who are" and "women who are not" parents. It seems to me to be an obvious point to consider. Could it be that OP does not consider that there are enough "women who are not parents" to be worth considering that case.

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert

—> they make the choice to be the ones looking after their children, than to work really hard to have to pay someone else to do it.

@user75 Why do you think marriage is morally the 'right thing to do'? Genuine question...

@Singleparent78 / I agree with your general premise

Maybe I'm the one who isn't communicating effectively.

I don't know how to say it any other way. As I have already stated, I don't think we are limited by our biology. I do not feel that I have been limited by my biology in any way. You were the one who initially suggested that I might consider biology to be limiting, and I confirmed that I did not.

I do think that some women have a limiting interpretation of what their biology means, but I believe that they are limited by their beliefs and not by any actual biological realities. I have never found any conflict whatsoever between my natural maternal instincts and the other ambitions that I have had in my life. The two have combined beautifully, and neither has limited the other.

Not sure why OP did not recognise the difference between 'women who are" and "women who are not" parents. It seems to me to be an obvious point to consider. Could it be that OP does not consider that there are enough "women who are not parents" to be worth considering that case.

@FinallyHere Because I think it's marriage that makes the difference financially, not being a parent or not, although appreciate being a parent does introduce more constraints both practical/operational and financial.

Sort of agree, although I ADORE my DC. Having kids rewires your brain and shortens your telomeres so you don’t live as long.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-lasting-changes-in-a-womans-brain/

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180308133313.htm

However, also seen several female family members live to a ripe old age, very lonely and regretful, because they didn’t have anyone closely related to them in the end… found it hard to cope… it was one of my main motivators having a family really, didn’t fancy that end 🥴.

Careful, your misogyny is showing.

Single people are not combining incomes so will often be worse off than a couple.

I'm female and out earn DH. Are you amazed how he is benefitting from marriage to me?

You can be a parent and be single.