For those who don't want the 'piece of paper' (kids, couple, relations)
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.
Even if you get divorced when you are 28, if you were married 10 years or longer and don't remarry, it's based on your ex-spouses income (or yours, whichever is higher). Folks who meet a new sweetie later in life sometimes choose not to marry them for this reason.
The whole point of it, I would imagine, is if one partner did not work and stayed home to raise the family. Otherwise, you have your own benefits to rely on. And it's probably so rare to have a SAHP for the long haul between unmarried people.
Quote:
I seem to have hit a nerve with this thread, but I can't figure out why people are so upset. And even, in the case of skaternum, projecting their upset onto me.
Well, your OP is passive/aggressive, which in part caused some confusion initially and it just leaves a bad taste. Beyond that it's just a matter of "are you kidding?" I wish you were right, but you're just not. And you know how it goes on the Internet. When you're wrong about something there are many to stand in line and tell you so. It's just the nature of forums.
The whole point of it, I would imagine, is if one partner did not work and stayed home to raise the family. Otherwise, you have your own benefits to rely on. And it's probably so rare to have a SAHP for the long haul between unmarried people.
Golly, I'm not saying you don't have your own benefits, merely that if your salary is lower then your benefits are based on your salary, not your partner's. For some couples that's a small difference, for others it's a large one.
Quote:
Well, your OP is passive/aggressive, which in part caused some confusion initially and it just leaves a bad taste. Beyond that it's just a matter of "are you kidding?" I wish you were right, but you're just not. And you know how it goes on the Internet. When you're wrong about something there are many to stand in line and tell you so. It's just the nature of forums.
Thank you for explaining how I came across to you. I really appreciate it because I was very confused.
I don't think I have ever been called passive aggressive before in my life I am generally (IRL and online) criticized for being the opposite: Too direct, if anything.
So, I guess what you are telling me is that my experience seems so strange that people think it must not be true? I feel that way, too! I started this thread partially in the hope that there was some solution my financial adviser had missed. I am hampered by not being able to give a lot of detail about my personal situation for privacy reasons, but I figured that a general conversation might be useful to more people anyway.
Instead, this is sort of reminding me of the problem my sister and her fiance have: They are from different countries, and have been trying for 10 years to find a way that, once married, they can live in the same country -- either the US or his country. People who haven't dealt with the beurocracy are always certain that spouses are just automatically allowed to come here, but those who deal with the system professionally tell them there is likely no way to work it out. Sometimes the rules just violate common sense -- but they are still the rules.
Golly, I'm not saying you don't have your own benefits, merely that if your salary is lower then your benefits are based on your salary, not your partner's. For some couples that's a small difference, for others it's a large one.
My guess is that any difference would be pretty negligible if both are working. I'm always harping on the whole birds of a feather thing, but likes typically end up with likes so I figure income will follow suit.
Quote:
Thank you for explaining how I came across to you. I really appreciate it because I was very confused.
I don't think I have ever been called passive aggressive before in my life I am generally (IRL and online) criticized for being the opposite: Too direct, if anything.
Yea, that's how it seemed to me. I will also add that the use of "the piece of paper" can also be taken as passive/aggressive. It's dismissive and belittling of marriage, but indirect. I'm not saying that was your intent. Many people use those words, so it's common, but that's how it usually reads to me. That and that the marriage concept is loaded and emotional for some people.
Quote:
So, I guess what you are telling me is that my experience seems so strange that people think it must not be true? I feel that way, too! I started this thread partially in the hope that there was some solution my financial adviser had missed. I am hampered by not being able to give a lot of detail about my personal situation for privacy reasons, but I figured that a general conversation might be useful to more people anyway.
I'm not sure what your experience is. Maybe it's in the thread somewhere. I only skimmed the thread. I've seen some mention of financial advisers. I think you may want to look into other financial advisers if the one you are paying your hard earned money too believes SS survivor benefits of a potential spouse or ex-spouse should be included in your retirement portfolio. I'm not a finance person myself, but that just seems cockamamie to me. Also, I think it would do you well to look into improving your own ability to earn. Perhaps further schooling or vocational training.
Quote:
Instead, this is sort of reminding me of the problem my sister and her fiance have: They are from different countries, and have been trying for 10 years to find a way that, once married, they can live in the same country -- either the US or his country. People who haven't dealt with the beurocracy are always certain that spouses are just automatically allowed to come here, but those who deal with the system professionally tell them there is likely no way to work it out. Sometimes the rules just violate common sense -- but they are still the rules.
Ok, but I don't know what their story has to do with the thread.
I'm not sure what your experience is. Maybe it's in the thread somewhere. I only skimmed the thread. I've seen some mention of financial advisers. I think you may want to look into other financial advisers if the one you are paying your hard earned money too believes SS survivor benefits of a potential spouse or ex-spouse should be included in your retirement portfolio. I'm not a finance person myself, but that just seems cockamamie to me.
Well I asked her...and she didn't say. This is why no one is "getting" her thread. No one can relate to what SHE says is her experience.
So OP, exactly WHAT happened to you, that makes you think that all single couples are getting screwed financially?
Even if you get divorced when you are 28, if you were married 10 years or longer and don't remarry, it's based on your ex-spouses income (or yours, whichever is higher). Folks who meet a new sweetie later in life sometimes choose not to marry them for this reason.
--
I seem to have hit a nerve with this thread, but I can't figure out why people are so upset. And even, in the case of skaternum, projecting their upset onto me.
So you are suggesting that people make decisions to marry or not to marry depending on SS benefits. I would really doubt that. Like I said earlier in this thread, it will only really matter if you make a much lower salary than your spouse and even then I don't think the benefits (by themselves) are a reason to marry or not.
I think people are upset because you started this thread and you are telling people they are wrong, but being very vague about it. Maybe something happened to you, but I am guessing it's not something that is common as no one seems to know what you are talking about.
Yes. I am in a relationship with two girls - not the usual one - so marriage simply is not an option for us at all. So we have spent a long time with our family lawyer writing up legal documents which basically afford us the same right - inheritence, next of kin, medical proxy, visitation, guardianship over our children - and much more that come as default with standard marriage.
When I was dating my ex boyfriend, I had to make a decision regarding his surgery once. The doctors in the hospital wanted to contact his sister and parents. I was there to "take care of him" I was not there to make decisions. I was just a girlfriend, not a spouse. I was not a "family". It really hurts.
After my first boyfriend committed suicide, I was not entitled to any of his money. All his money went directly to his daughter and his ex wife whom he hated with passion. I was fine with that because I loved his little girl with all my heart. But I realized that by being a loving girlfriend, by being the one woman he ever loved (his words, not mine), it is just not enough.
Despite the misconception that the term “common law husband/wife” has some legal standing, unfortunately it does not. If an unmarried partner dies without making sufficient provision for their surviving partner in their Will then the survivor has no right to an inheritance from the estate under the existing intestacy rules.
It is what it is. Love does not protect an unmarried spouse. Cohabitation agreement does.
If you choose not to get married, you better be prepared and protect yourself against potential losses.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 06-11-2013 at 06:40 AM..
Yes. I am in a relationship with two girls - not the usual one - so marriage simply is not an option for us at all. So we have spent a long time with our family lawyer writing up legal documents which basically afford us the same right - inheritence, next of kin, medical proxy, visitation, guardianship over our children - and much more that come as default with standard marriage.
You are being practical and realistic. Good for you.
The whole point of it, I would imagine, is if one partner did not work and stayed home to raise the family. Otherwise, you have your own benefits to rely on. And it's probably so rare to have a SAHP for the long haul between unmarried people.
A couple of things trike me. While this was never part of the decision making process, we have always decided on the benefit package with the best cost/benefit analysis. In my case for example, I was able to negotiate a higher take home salary since I was not going to cost the company benefits.
It seems of very little importance how long of a haul a parent chooses to stay home since the family needs benefits for that time, regardless of the haul.
This is a weird topic to be getting angry about. Everyone has their own financial decisions to make and makes them.
I seem to have hit a nerve with this thread, but I can't figure out why people are so upset. And even, in the case of skaternum, projecting their upset onto me.
Huh? I'm projecting my upset onto you?? Honey, I'm not upset at all. I'm just trying to point out that you are wrong. You posted an inflammatory thread title ("piece of paper" insults those of us who value the institution of marriage), started with an OP that was confusing (I'm being kind; no one could figure out WHAT you were talking about), posted information that was either factually wrong or went against everyone else's experience, and then refused to give information about your own experience. What did you expect people to say?
Re: the SS thing ... have you ever actually looked at what social security pays to a surviving spouse? It's peanuts. As others have pointed out, unless the partner was SAH and the working partner was a high earner, the surviving partner would get very much. Again, that should NOT be a deciding factor in retirement planning.
So I ask you again ... what exactly is your problem? What are YOU specifically losing out on?
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.
I am generally (IRL and online) criticized for being the opposite: Too direct, if anything.
