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 would be highly suspicious of a wealthier partner who seemed overly preoccupied with shielding assets prior to getting married. Not because I might not get access to those assets after a divorce, but because it suggests my future spouse wanted to exert economic control over me while we were married. Money is power, and personal bonds are difficult to forge when one person has too much power over the other.
nonsense
nothing wrong with wanting to protect your hard earned assets. In a perfect world commitment would be unequivocal and marriages would last forever, love would only be true love, it would stand the test of time and your partner would stick with you through thick and thin.
Unfortunately in today's world people have short memories, promise you the world and the seven seas but when times get rough they conveniently forget the promise. It is virtually impossible to ascertain ahead whether someone is going to leave you or not. People change, circumstances change and one day your partner may just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm leaving you because the "spark" has died".... then you may wind up Facked because you're now too old to recover financially and have to pay alimony and will wind up with nothing.
Call me cynical but all I'm being is a realist...marriage these days is a monumental risk, and you are sitting on your high horse and condemning those who take some steps to mitigate that risk? Seesh!
nothing wrong with wanting to protect your hard earned assets. In a perfect world commitment would be unequivocal and marriages would last forever, love would only be true love, it would stand the test of time and your partner would stick with you through thick and thin.
Unfortunately in today's world people have short memories, promise you the world and the seven seas but when times get rough they conveniently forget the promise. It is virtually impossible to ascertain ahead whether someone is going to leave you or not. People change, circumstances change and one day your partner may just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm leaving you because the "spark" has died".... then you may wind up Facked because you're now too old to recover financially and have to pay alimony and will wind up with nothing.
Call me cynical but all I'm being is a realist...marriage these days is a monumental risk, and you are sitting on your high horse and condemning those who take some steps to mitigate that risk? Seesh!
You know, not everyone has to get married. If you don't want to - that's totally fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You know, not everyone has to get married. If you don't want to - that's totally fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You know, I have met so many people who were so in love, they used to make these same arguments - that people who try to protect their assets etc. do not understand marriage. Then they got divorced and their entire tune changed. They could not believe how naive they were, they wished they would've protected themselves, they did not see it coming, they could not believe their partner would do this to them etc.
I have seen it way too often. I'm not saying there aren't good marriage, but good marriages are definitely in the minority. This is not my opinion, it's statistical fact based on divorce rates and polls that show a good number of marriages are unhappy even though the people do not divorce. With those odds I totally understand why people would want to protect themselves financially in case the marriage dissolves.
Unfortunately, it's the man who usually suffers, women initiate divorce and are glad to do it if the situation is no longer convenient to them.
You know, I have met so many people who were so in love, they used to make these same arguments - that people who try to protect their assets etc. do not understand marriage. Then they got divorced and their entire tune changed. They could not believe how naive they were, they wished they would've protected themselves, they did not see it coming, they could not believe their partner would do this to them etc.
I have seen it way too often. I'm not saying there aren't good marriage, but good marriages are definitely in the minority. This is not my opinion, it's statistical fact based on divorce rates and polls that show a good number of marriages are unhappy even though the people do not divorce. With those odds I totally understand why people would want to protect themselves financially in case the marriage dissolves.
Unfortunately, it's the man who usually suffers, women initiate divorce and are glad to do it if the situation is no longer convenient to them.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. My point is that you don't seem like you want to get married. So don't get married. Marriage isn't for everyone. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything. I think it's better to not get married if your heart isn't in it.
Most financial advisers you will talk too including Suze Orman say that people who get married should 100% have pre-nups because their judgement is clouded by love. Almost all people who get married believe their marriage will last for life, however in reality the divorce rate is 50% which means 1 in 2 will fail. That's a pretty huge difference between reality and what people think will happen.
That's just wrong. A- the divorce rate is not 50% and even if it were that doesn't mean a 1 in 2 random sample fail.
That is what I am saying, you don't need anything to protect your assets that were acquired before your marriage. Those are NOT split...those are your separate assets.
Community property begins when you start your marriage, everything before that is by default separate.
Not true. I have seen instances where spouses can and do go after the others assets.
One friend. His wife left him. Cheated on him. Sued and was granted 50% of his retirement. I have a few others but if its not spelled out clearly and you open the door a little bit a good lawyer will make minced meat out of you and your assets in court.
People like to think love conquers all and they will be living happily ever after. Then one cheats or decides they don't wanna be there and the fighting starts. And then it becomes a mess. I have a few family members who are fighting the exact thing you said that cannot be taken away from them. It's too easy to start considering something community property.
If you bring assets with you and want to protect them then get a prenup. If you believe. Your love is stronger than anything out there then don't.
nothing wrong with wanting to protect your hard earned assets. In a perfect world commitment would be unequivocal and marriages would last forever, love would only be true love, it would stand the test of time and your partner would stick with you through thick and thin.
Unfortunately in today's world people have short memories, promise you the world and the seven seas but when times get rough they conveniently forget the promise. It is virtually impossible to ascertain ahead whether someone is going to leave you or not. People change, circumstances change and one day your partner may just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm leaving you because the "spark" has died".... then you may wind up Facked because you're now too old to recover financially and have to pay alimony and will wind up with nothing.
Call me cynical but all I'm being is a realist...marriage these days is a monumental risk, and you are sitting on your high horse and condemning those who take some steps to mitigate that risk? Seesh!
I don't have any problem with people's desire to protect their assets. I have a bit of a problem with people who choose to marry people who they know will be completely dependent of them financially.
I used to work in family law. Invariably, the cases where assets had to be sold off and divided were those in which one spouse, usually the man, was vastly wealthier than the other. I understand wanting to protect one's assets. But what a lot of wealthier spouses resent is the loss of power. They were used to getting their way in their marriages because they were wealthier. What they resent is not being able to leave their exes totally desperate and destitute as a punishment for leaving them.
There are profound and serious reasons to formalize the relationship with state recognition, but without necessarily undergoing the proverbial “two becoming one”. For instance, there are tax breaks associated with marriage. Health insurance. Mutual legal rights. Hospital visitation rights. Inheritance rights. In immigrant communities, marriage confers residency rights, and eventually citizenship. The list is extensive!
That notwithstanding, there are equally serious and understandable reasons to remain financially an individual, and not one half of an indivisible unit of two. It’s not selfishness. It’s basic protection of the fruits of one’s labor.
Perhaps what we need is a “marriage-light”, where the relationship is sexually exclusive and legally committed, but without commingling of assets?
Laws vary substantially from state to state. In my state, assets are segregated into “pre-marital” and “marital”. Home equity or stocks owned by one person prior to the marriage are pre-marital, but additional accumulation of equity on the same house, or capital gains on the same stocks, become marital, and are split 50/50 upon divorce. So if you have $10K in a mutual fund prior to marriage, and during the marriage that account rises to $100K from capital appreciation, then $90K are “marital” and would be split 50/50 in a court-adjudicated divorce (barring some mutually-agreeable alternative). Of course, in an amicable dissolution, the soon-to-be ex-spouses might agree to set aside state law.
From what I have seen personally, divorce amongst affluent and well-educated people is indeed fairly unusual. It’s far less than 50%. Maybe 20%. But when it does happen, the situation is fractious and the consequences brutal. However, in the same demographic, marriage very much remains the societal expectation and the norm.
I don't have any problem with people's desire to protect their assets. I have a bit of a problem with people who choose to marry people who they know will be completely dependent of them financially.
I used to work in family law. Invariably, the cases where assets had to be sold off and divided were those in which one spouse, usually the man, was vastly wealthier than the other. I understand wanting to protect one's assets. But what a lot of wealthier spouses resent is the loss of power. They were used to getting their way in their marriages because they were wealthier. What they resent is not being able to leave their exes totally desperate and destitute as a punishment for leaving them.
Excellent post.
And I agree that the solution is for guys to date and marry women who make equal or more money than they do.
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.
