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 think it's good for people 50', 60's and up to know if they choose to marry it will cost them a LOT of money. Marriage seems to be a real luxury for seniors. It's the equivalent of saying you can afford to throw away a couple grand per month.
Me personally, I would rather be married. I was sort of hoping someone would show me I was wrong about the marriage penalties. Or point out some huge advantages I missed.
If the marriage penalties were this glaringly obvious to young people, they would probably think more before jumping in! But young people have to consider children in the mix. Most seniors are long past baby having so that's no longer a factor.
I agree with the individual who said this is depressing. I wish it was all hearts and flowers too. But here's the thing, if I was 35, I could work harder, and longer to make up for the penalties. That's much more difficult to do when you are already retired. And most of us landed in this place due to death or divorce that we surely didn't anticipate.
I am grateful and even stunned I am lucky enough to have found someone who wants to spend the rest of his life with me. We can be married in our hearts but not on paper. We can have legal papers drawn up to give each other the same rights as a married couple. It will all work out fine! We need to be happy with what we have!
I think it's good for people 50', 60's and up to know if they choose to marry it will cost them a LOT of money. Marriage seems to be a real luxury for seniors. It's the equivalent of saying you can afford to throw away a couple grand per month.
Some years ago there were proposals to amend and modify the tax codes in order to eliminate the so called "Marriage penalty." These revisions were going to aid persons, seniors in particular, from losing income from SSA survivors or former spousal benefits in the event they should remarry. What ever became of those proposals, have heard little or nothing recently? All of the senior advocacy groups were supporters, but lately, what has been going on?
Apologies for posting this snip, I get your point. But for the most part marriages, especially after 60, ARE business arrangements. There's nothing in our culture to stop anyone of any age from romancing and/or cohabitating. If a crazy-in-love couple wants to stay together, they don't have to marry, they can just carry on, and more power to them!
It's only when they want to take it to the next level - i.e. legalizing their relationship - that marriage becomes a consideration. In other words, they want to transmute their romantic relationship into a business arrangement, one in which they as partners have certain legal rights.
Exactly! It's the actual legal marriage that MAKES it a business arrangement. Why can two people who love each other just be together because they want to commit to each other, and want to be together and grow old together? There is your romanticism, Blackshoe.
We live in a retirement community. Lots of wonderful folks "meet up" here and decide to combine households, but seldom marry. They have their wills amended to read that they have decided that when one of them goes, the other is free to live in the shared home until death or no longer desired, and then the assets return to the original owners heirs. I think this is a very pragmatic way to resolve issues that might otherwise arise given "assets" of each at the time of their blending households at later points in their lives.
Do you really think most people over 60 have no sex life?
No, I think that most people in their 80s and 90s have no sex life, and unless you are actually in your sixties or older, your opinion is only theoretical.
I agree with Blackshoe. I find it appalling to approach relationships and marriage as purely fiduciary matters. To me it bespeaks a society with dwindling standards and a mercenary approach to life and love. Should my wife predecease me that would be the end of relationships/marriage for me but not for those reasons. I simply don't have the energy required of a good relationship and the prospect of another one does not appeal. I would be sustained by good memories of what was and that would suffice.
My friends mother died and his dad remarried. When he died my friend (only child) got nothing. But his stepmothers children got everything. Not a pretty picture in my book.
My friends mother died and his dad remarried. When he died my friend (only child) got nothing. But his stepmothers children got everything. Not a pretty picture in my book.
Same thing happened in my family. My granddad married after he retired and died a few years later. His current wife got everything and then she died so it all went to her only son. My uncles and aunt weren't happy about it but nothing they could do. I don't think granddad thought she'd do that.
If I am not married to a partner who has a long term illness, then my assets are not depleted in order to pay for their care.
No, but your assets are of course depleted to pay for your own care. And then, can he handle all the expenses for the two of you on his own if your assets are gone.
Thank you all for your thoughts on this matter. The posts have been an eye-opener. At 63, I have contemplated re-marriage. However, after reading this thread, I don't think it would be a very good idea for me.
It may not be a good idea for a lot of people.
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.