Controversial marriage question

[wedding12341]

Thinking about another thread on here where someone has moved in and had children with their fiancé who has now changed his mind about getting married. Someone on the thread said it is just a small minority of women that are disadvantaged by marriage.

Eg - the woman brings more assets / money to the marriage than the man.

Based on the above

If you were one of these women in the minority (or your friend / daughter was) - Would you advise them not to get married?

Mrdressinggown is very caring - he has looked after me when I was long term ill. And I absolutely would do the same for him.

But he still isn't getting anything of mine that can be inherited - that is going to my children.

Why should he get what I worked hard for before he was on the scene? Why should his children benefit from my hard work? They have two parents of their own to provide for them, that's not my job.

I have done all I can to protect what money is mine. Mrdressinggown gets the benefit of living with me - his outgoings are less and he lives a better lifestyle than he could on his own - I pay for most things, including holidays.

Also, he knew the deal very clearly before he moved in - I was very clear on how it was going to be. If he doesn't like it, he can leave at any time.

I would advise my daughter to weigh the options, and act in a manner that best protects her. She may not plan to divorce, but statistically at a minimum there is a 50% cha that a divorce will occur.

I would advise her not to marry and certainly not to have a child before she is fully capable of supporting both herself and the child on her own.

The word partnership is bandied about to describe a marriage or a relationship, but in reality their are several types of partnerships with varying types of equity and ownership positions and varying types of say in how the partnership functions.

I think things tend to work best when partners enter into a marriage with relatively equal financial and educational standing and achievement.

I would advise my daughter to not enter into any marriage where she is going to become a financial dependent.

In all honesty, I think the bigger commitment is having children, so getting married is essential for them. I don't understand why people have children before getting married. I know some people don't believe in "marriage", and they don't follow a religion etc, and that's absolutely fine. But getting married in the UK, for example, is less about "faith", and more about protecting assets and those owed to your children.

You should seek financial advice about these different scenarios and what happens in the event of death or divorce. If you marry and have kids, then get divorced, and your ex re-marries and has children with them, there are different laws that may give more money (via inheritance) to his children with a second wife, rather than to your children from your first marriage with him. You have to protect yourself and your children, that is your main duty especially in a world where men don't really take years out of career for childcare and women lose those years in pension and access to employment benefits like healthcare etc. That's what I would advise.

Because i don't see why getting married means everything has to merge in to one? My earnings are part of my identity.

My pot. House/holiday/family pot. His pot.

Everybody should be looking at protecting themselves. I've worked very very hard top make sure (as long as i'm in good health) that i am never financially reliant any anybody else but me. I've been burned before and i can see friends stuck in unhappy marriages because they have shared income and can't get out.

Being financially independent doesn't make you any less of a good, loving family/parent.

I've essentially been there twice. I did everything I could legally to protect my assests. My 1st marriage I paid out a divorce settlement but kept my house.

This marriage is different. I did bring the biggest asset to the marriage, however DH far out earns me now, and brings a significant amount to the table for our future, where as my earning potential is not going to increase significantly. This marriage feels much fairer and much more of a focus of building for retirement together. I still believe we would be fair if it did come to it, but hope we won't have to.

My advice would be based on what they are both bringing to the party. Will the man be the facilitator and cheerleader of the main bread winner? Allowing them to focus on their career, have time for leisure activities and not be bothered by the grunt of life admin. If the answer is a solid yes, then it's fine. I really don't think men understand the demands of along the supporting role.

I have been in both positions. Initially as the breadwinner, so that's why he is an ex. Now, I make a good contribution and will step up again in about three years when my partner semi-retires. Talking to my partner the other day about this, he was reading off all the DIY jobs and things he'll do on his 'spare time'. I reeled off the list of what I do now, plus work full time, care for SEN kid. His response was, we'll how could I do all those things as well!!!

Lol, no. I didn’t marry before any god.

Marriage predates Abrahamic religion (because that’s one of the ones you’re referring to), and it exists separately to religion.

You can commit to marriage believing you won’t ever divorce, in much the same way you can drive around believing you won’t ever crash. Wearing a seatbelt doesn’t mean you intend to crash, just as protecting your assets doesn’t mean you intend to split up.

I wouldn't get married in that position- unless I expected my partner to make financial/career sacrifices to raise our children.

Being financially reliant on someone is a bit different. I would never be reliant on anyone again because when DH died and his life insurance didn’t pay out (because it was a genetic condition) I couldn’t afford to stay in our home. I would never be in that position again. DP understands that. We’ll never own a house I couldn’t afford to keep alone. So we’ll have a smaller house but more holidays etc!

I agree with you when you say "My earnings are part of my identity. My pot. House/holiday/family pot. "

I completely agree in principle, but that's not how the law works. There are pros and cons for getting married, but You are better off getting married if he is the high earner or sole earner, for example, if you end up taking care of the children at home. You lose this "identity and pot" you mention because you lose your income and pensions growing, and other employee benefits, while he still has his. If you get divorced, The law takes into account the children you have raised and the employment sacrifices you have made. Make sure you have a good lawyer if he tries to divorce you, especially after you gave your body/womb, sacrificed income and pensions for this family he has enjoyed. Being the stay-at-home parent should be paid for, and that's another topic I won't get into here.

In the case of a partner's death, as a legal spouse, all his/her money goes to you directly without it being taxed. If you are married, spouses are spared tax on "inheritance". The same with a house - it all goes to the surviving spouse. Children on the other hand, pay inheritance tax. It gets more complicated for your children if you are divorced and he re-marries with children from this second marriage etc. There is lots of information on the internet.

There are pros and cons obviously, but honestly, I think people should get married if the partnership is good, safe and full of love to benefit from the laws that do work in your favour.

Personally, I think where I'd like the law to change is allowing a spouse (women in particular) own their own property that has nothing to do with the other spouse. For example, if a woman buys a property by herself before she marries, but then gets married, I don't think it's fair that it also becomes part of the spouse's assets. I think actions and assets before marriage should be kept separate, but at the same time, I can see this disadvantaging people who may end up in marriages where they grew up poor, but the spouse had parental handouts. Life and marriage is complicated.

Try to marry a good person first and foremost.

Marriage offers some protection against the exploitation of unpaid labour within a relationship. Unpaid labour skyrockets when there are children involved, and can get in the way of undertaking paid labour and achieving financial security.

There are two ways you can run a relationship imo... as a partnership or both paying your way. So either you have marriage or some other form of financial sharing or both parties pay their own way. And that means not only sharing expenses and financial commitments but also compensating the other partner when they provide more than their share of childcare and household labour at market rates. Anything else is financial exploitation imo. It's fine not to want to marry and share finances, but it's absolutely not fine to then refuse to do your share of childcare/chores or fail to financially compensate your partner for stepping up and doing more, especially if it is then limiting their financial independence.

I’d advise them to get married. I earn more than my husband and also come from a wealthier background. We’ve built a life together so we share all. To me this is what marriage is about sharing a life and being trans parents about everything together. My husband and I are a team.

Can I ask what you've done to protect yourself?

Before it was legally enforced most people didn't wear a seat belt. I suppose that's why they brought in the legislation.

That's what I used to think - then he had an affair and we divorced.

Although @ActDottie I'm not sure what you mean by being trans parents?

Yes if I wanted to have children as I would want the security of marriage for them. If I didn't want children and I was financially independent then I'd think twice about marriage.

I got married young, neither me or DH had any money. We have built a life and family together. At times I have earned more than him and him more than me. I am lucky that it has worked out for us. Our marriage isn’t perfect but we are old fashioned in the way we see it as a sacred commitment and we are building a life together as a team.

However if anything were to happen to DH I wouldn’t get married again. I don’t think I would achieve this equality with someone else. It wouldn’t be about building a life together so I wouldn’t see the point that marriage would serve.

I brought MUCH more to the marriage than DH. He was not working (actually states unemployed on the marriage cert.) and I was a high earner. He was a “house husband” effectively.
By the time we had our first child he was working and had a decent income. I gave up working until our last child went to secondary school - I was a “house wife”.
33 years later he is a high earner and I work part time on a low salary.
BUT through all the twists and turns EVERYTHING has always been shared.

If the relationship is a proper partnership then who “brings more” is totally irrelevant.

I did very well out my first divorce and own a large property with no mortgage worth just under 6 figures.

I did go on to meet someone else and have more children and I agreed to get engaged as he didn’t like saying I was his girlfriend/partner but I would never get married again as my house is really all I have and it’s for my children when I die.

so in my case it was better not to marry and put myself at risk (I was right to, we’ve just split up!)

If she owned significant equity in a house and he didn’t and couldn’t match her equity, yes I would suggest she look at the pros and cons of marriage.

If it was just a matter of different salaries I would say do what you like.

Basing a marriage on 'who brings what' to it is why marriages don't work out.

My DH and I have always lived, loved and worked as a team. The End.

That's what I thought of me and my "D"H.

He cheated. I didn't see that coming.

I won't make the same mistake again.

DH and I were talking about this the other day as a friend of ours has just separated from her husband.

Over the course of their marriage, she's always earned more than her husband and also brought up the children almost entirely by herself and he was a selfish git.

He started numerous business ventures that ended up costing them money, so they remortgaged the house to clear the debts he'd raised. He cheated on her multiple times and has now moved out, renting his own place elsewhere, that's not big enough for the children to go and stay with him, though they're older and don't want to see him anyway.

He's "generously" told her that he'll continue to pay his half of the mortgage until it's paid off, then they'll sell the house and split the proceeds.

Legally, I know this is right that the house should be split 50:50, but morally it feels awful. Compared to what they'd each contributed over the years, both financially and in terms of time and effort, he will end up with far more than he should.

He'll be able to buy himself a little one bedroom place mortgage free with his half of the house, yet as she's still left with the (by then adult) children, she'll have to either tell them to move out and find their own place, or buy something of a similar size to what they're in now, to house them all (or buy him out of his half of the house).

So, just at the point that they should have been mortgage free, she'll have to take another mortgage to get shot of him.

That said, if they hadn't been married, there wouldn't have been any difference really. Neither of them have any other significant assets.

I think I'd only advise someone to not get married if there were other significant assets that the other person would potentially have a claim on later. That would apply no matter which person had the most money - husband or wife.