Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Marriage" was originally a convenient between man, women and Church/God. Since governments hate to feel left out, Marriage was turned into a legal incorporation of sorts, very easy to get into.....but very expensive and complicated to get out of. It is said the women control relationships, but it is men that ultimately decided about marriage. I think marriage rates will continue to decline until prenups are built into the marriage license. WHY should men put all their assets, future earnings, and retirement accounts at risk? She gets bored, cheats, wants out of the marriage in a couple years and she walks with life-long cash and prizes.
That is an interesting idea. It might work for determining ahead of time how assets would be split in case of divorce. And maybe it could work for child custody, being an automatic 50-50 split, unless one parent is shown to be dangerous and unfit. But divorce attorneys would fight that tooth and nail. Attorneys love ugly divorces, with their $500/hour fees (and higher). It should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get divorced, but I have personally known of such cases.
"Marriage" was originally a convenient between man, women and Church/God. Since governments hate to feel left out, Marriage was turned into a legal incorporation of sorts, very easy to get into.....but very expensive and complicated to get out of. It is said the women control relationships, but it is men that ultimately decided about marriage. I think marriage rates will continue to decline until prenups are built into the marriage license. WHY should men put all their assets, future earnings, and retirement accounts at risk? She gets bored, cheats, wants out of the marriage in a couple years and she walks with life-long cash and prizes.
I agree. I wouldn't get married again w/o more equitable divorce laws, and a w/o having a pre-nup in place.
The laws are extremely outdated, and unfair to men. I have already alerted our Son to this fact. He stands to inherit a lot of money, & we dont want to see 1/2 of it all lost on a failed 1st marriage. We backloaded the trust payouts, but then the laws changed to forces earlier payouts, so the feds can tax it. Now, we have to figure out a way to re-structure our wills & trusts, or he'll require a pre-nup to exclude his inheritance as being part of the marital property.
Here's a novel idea...marriages that legally expire as soon as all the kids leave the nest. The couple can always re-marry if they please.
"Marriage" was originally a convenient between man, women and Church/God. Since governments hate to feel left out, Marriage was turned into a legal incorporation of sorts, very easy to get into.....but very expensive and complicated to get out of. It is said the women control relationships, but it is men that ultimately decided about marriage. I think marriage rates will continue to decline until prenups are built into the marriage license. WHY should men put all their assets, future earnings, and retirement accounts at risk? She gets bored, cheats, wants out of the marriage in a couple years and she walks with life-long cash and prizes.
LOL.
The initial purpose of marriage was to insure paternity.
What makes you think men put assets, future earning and retirement at risk? You realize most people either get married early on before they have assets, substantial earning or retirement, or marry later (which is the growing trend) when BOTH parties have accumulated assets, substantial earnings and savings, right. Nearly half of the US workforce is made up of women.
Apparently, you are not aware that both parties contribute to the cash and prizes and that life long alimony went the way of the dinosaur. Unless you marry someone with no earning potential and keep them as a dependent child you dont have any worries about losing YOUR assets and future earnings.
I agree. I wouldn't get married again w/o more equitable divorce laws, and a w/o having a pre-nup in place.
The laws are extremely outdated, and unfair to men. I have already alerted our Son to this fact. He stands to inherit a lot of money, & we dont want to see 1/2 of it all lost on a failed 1st marriage. We backloaded the trust payouts, but then the laws changed to forces earlier payouts, so the feds can tax it. Now, we have to figure out a way to re-structure our wills & trusts, or he'll require a pre-nup to exclude his inheritance as being part of the marital property.
Here's a novel idea...marriages that legally expire as soon as all the kids leave the nest. The couple can always re-marry if they please.
Then dont get married.
You realize the tables can be turned. What if it was your daughter. Would laws still be unfair to men. These laws are not gender specific.
I agree. I wouldn't get married again w/o more equitable divorce laws, and a w/o having a pre-nup in place.
The laws are extremely outdated, and unfair to men. I have already alerted our Son to this fact. He stands to inherit a lot of money, & we dont want to see 1/2 of it all lost on a failed 1st marriage. We backloaded the trust payouts, but then the laws changed to forces earlier payouts, so the feds can tax it. Now, we have to figure out a way to re-structure our wills & trusts, or he'll require a pre-nup to exclude his inheritance as being part of the marital property.
Here's a novel idea...marriages that legally expire as soon as all the kids leave the nest. The couple can always re-marry if they please.
I don't think divorce law is unfair to men.
My fiance and I both have trust funds, A trust created during a marriage can consist of both community property and separate property.
In a divorce, if assets in the trust are considered to be community property, they will usually be split equally between the parties. If certain trust property is considered separate property, this property will usually remain in the possession of the spouse who initially owned the asset. Keep in mind, though, that the trust can lay out different distributions.
I think during a marriage, there is no such a thing as me myself and I. I consider my money his money, he considers his money my money.
Which is why I said it earlier in my post, If I were a man, I would not marry a woman who is financially irresponsible or dirty poor. MANY TIMES (not all times) financial irresponsibility is a character issue. Same rule applies to women.
I hope I did not offend you in anyway. I guess the point I am making here is that If one does not feel their trust fund should be community asset, there is a way to avoid it. I don't think it is unfair to either party.
Forgot to add: and this is not directed to any posters here in this thread, Decent men consider their wives equal partners. Even IF the woman decided to stay at home taking care of the household and children, she contributes a lot to the marriage. If one does not think this is fair, sure, don't get married.
Same goes, if my fiance lost all his money and his businesses, I will use my money to support the household, I don't think that is unfair either. <shrug>
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 09-23-2022 at 09:22 AM..
My fiance and I both have trust funds, A trust created during a marriage can consist of both community property and separate property.
In a divorce, if assets in the trust are considered to be community property, they will usually be split equally between the parties. If certain trust property is considered separate property, this property will usually remain in the possession of the spouse who initially owned the asset. Keep in mind, though, that the trust can lay out different distributions.
I think during a marriage, there is no such a thing as me myself and I. I consider my money his money, he considers his money my money.
Which is why I said it earlier in my post, If I were a man, I would not marry a woman who is financially irresponsible or dirty poor. MANY TIMES (not all times) financial irresponsibility is a character issue. Same rule applies to women.
I hope I did not offend you in anyway. I guess the point I am making here is that If one does not feel their trust fund should be community asset, there is a way to avoid it. I don't think it is unfair to either party.
Forgot to add: and this is not directed to any posters here in this thread, Decent men consider their wives equal partners. Even IF the woman decided to stay at home taking care of the household and children, she contributes a lot to the marriage. If one does not think this is fair, sure, don't get married.
Same goes, if my fiance lost all his money and his businesses, I will use my money to support the household, I don't think that is unfair either. <shrug>
I agree with you. Marriage is about forming a partnership for the benefit of both parties and any future children. If one is going to form a partnership make wise and informed decisions. If one does not like the idea of a partnership, then by all means do not marry
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, we have to figure out a way to re-structure our wills & trusts, or he'll require a pre-nup to exclude his inheritance as being part of the marital property. 
So non-Catholics ....
