Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

So only people in Bethesda and NW DC are on this board?

The population of the metro DC area is 6.5 million and there are around 5,000 World Bank staff in DC so you're talking about .0007 percent of the population.

I've dated women from Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and NW DC. Rather than present several case studies, I'd say nearly all were poor despite where they lived. They leased their fancy cars, and they had no idea how they would pay for their kid's college. Some were in the process of losing their 6-bedroom homes and facing downsizing to a Rockville townhouse.

Rich, divorced World Bank guys all seem to have a second wife or girlfriend in another country. One of the guys I once knew had two girlfriends in the field, both had children with him (his wife back in DC eventually got a divorce).

I know people with $2 million homes and they have $1.5 million mortgages. That's not being rich.

Your post is part of the reason the rest of the nation hates Washington DC (and the World Bank).

My targeted ads today are for Adobe and Grainger.

The point is that dmv is the area where these 0.0007 percent folks are concentrated, just like Manhattan in NY. Your dating experience is very adverse selection of females. I'm not from the WB, but do you realize what 5,000 staff in DC means? All these people live in one small area, plus you add to that multiple gov contractors, consultants, real estate professionals, lawyers etc. And all these organizations hire just as many women as men, so why would divorced females from WB staff be so far behind their ex-husbands? Unless of course there is a major jobs/salaries discrimination, women should be doing just as well as men. And it looks from this board like they are in fact doing well.

Who believes all the numbers thrown out on an anonymous board? Even anonymously people troll about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

BS. My dad was a well known bigwig at one of those (ie very googleable) and his pension isn't barely a fraction of that. And military pensions top out at about 90K.

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/judgments-orders/DZ%20v.%20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/643781616107534010-0220012021/original/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

NP and I posted census data earlier in the thread. It's a low percentage of people making $200K+ in DC, like 14%. It's a lot of people numerically but it's not surprising that one dates you're not finding a lot of high income people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

This thread (and many other DCUM threads) abundantly demonstrate that even older women are with you for the money, so you might as well date younger and hotter if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

Let’s define broke woman. A woman who has a job or career that doesn’t pay high is not a broke woman. A man with higher income would and will pay for dates with this woman and take her on trips. Even if the woman earned a decent 100k job, the higher income male would cover her.

I’m married and my DH earns a seven figure income. When we were grad students and young professionals, he still paid for me despite my having a six figure income. My BIL is single and also now makes over $1m per year. While he wants someone educated, high income is not something that is importers to him. Whether the woman earns 50k or 200k or 500k won’t matter to him. He does want someone attractive, smart and kind. I don’t think he has ever dated someone who was “broke”. I don’t think we use that word or know anyone like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

Let’s define broke woman. A woman who has a job or career that doesn’t pay high is not a broke woman. A man with higher income would and will pay for dates with this woman and take her on trips. Even if the woman earned a decent 100k job, the higher income male would cover her.

I’m married and my DH earns a seven figure income. When we were grad students and young professionals, he still paid for me despite my having a six figure income. My BIL is single and also now makes over $1m per year. While he wants someone educated, high income is not something that is importers to him. Whether the woman earns 50k or 200k or 500k won’t matter to him. He does want someone attractive, smart and kind. I don’t think he has ever dated someone who was “broke”. I don’t think we use that word or know anyone like that.

You are speaking of seven figure income men: for them woman's income is irrelevant, indeed. But I wouldn't want to date anyone like your BIL as they would be always on search for a unicorn. Perfect looks, perfect brain, everything in a woman. I don't want to feel like I always have to compete for my man. I want an equal partner and speak about mid 6-figure income dates. Men who earn 250-500k absolutely take into account if a woman is "broke" or she's an equal. All equal, someone in his 50s from this income bracket would pick a woman who also brings about same to the table. Together they are a $1mm household. It changes the lifestyle drastically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

NP and I posted census data earlier in the thread. It's a low percentage of people making $200K+ in DC, like 14%. It's a lot of people numerically but it's not surprising that one dates you're not finding a lot of high income people.

I never dated a man who wasn't making at least 200K in his 40s-50s. I date white, and all professional folks with grad degrees are making at this this. I make more/400K as a woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

This thread (and many other DCUM threads) abundantly demonstrate that even older women are with you for the money, so you might as well date younger and hotter if you can.

This thread actually shows that older women are forgiving of men making less, but want financially secure dates who are able to contribute into joint dating experiences at par with women. You have hangups about women wanting your money, and need to process it first before dating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

A 25% downpayment for the house would be from pre-martial founds (and can be 50:50) but it’s jointly owned in entirety by spouses, mortgage is paid from marital funds, all maintenance and renovations. Thus both spouses are equity owners benefiting from its growth. Only a stupid person would agree to give downpayment money or be on a mortgage note but not on a deed. I personally would never move into a house that’s not joint or which I would have to vacate if my partner dies. It’s such a stress in older age!
Men usually marry younger and there is a high component of caregiving for their spouses in older age. I’ve seen couples with 15-30 years difference where the wife had to completely forgo her lifestyle, travel in her 60s etc, to make sure the husband survives. If he lacks integrity and appreciation of her sacrifices and doesn’t feel like giving back some of it in the form of life insurance, that is unfit partner. He should live alone in seniors community, and pay for his care (which is not cheap btw!)
Adult children are not the ones holding your hand in old age, in some cases they fail even to call parents. And they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds. There is usually a pre-martial component in all pensions etc which can be easily appraised by actuary.

I am highly skeptical of this "caregiver" scenario. This is just how gold-diggers rationalize why they should get all the gold and his kids should get nothing.

If she's just in it for his money then he really is better off living in a senior community and paying for his care. From my own observation of senior communities, he won't be there for long. Those places are mostly full of lonely old women.

" they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds." -- the second wife should have enough already from her lifetime of work. She should not need anything from her second husband. Don't marry a broke woman who needs to inherit your kid's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I expect the man to be similarly situated.

Excellent credit
Retirement savings
Emergency fund
Car
Nice house or apartment
Entertainment funds to eat dinner, lunch, or brunch at least once a week
Funds for 3 to 4 short weekend trips annually
Funds for a longer week long vacation annually

I don't have high expectations.

Also non smoker who works out regularly

I’m not divorced but have more money than all my friends. It is reasonable to expect the man to at bare minimum cover his share of food. I would hate to go dutch personally. I would rather take turns paying and if he can only take you to a diner for breakfast, that should be ok with you.

I have more money to travel than all my friends and family. I often cover the hotel or rent a house and friends pay for their flights. They can usually cover food and flights. I can stay at nicer accommodations. I have a much higher travel budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how every woman on DCUM is a mini Sheryl Sandberg yet whenever I go on a date with a cute late 20’s chick from Hinge they’re all broke. The only single women I know irl who aren’t broke are the ones who I work with. Never been on a date with a chick under 35 making six figures.

And? At 35 I made $60K and had $125K in debt. By 45 I made $180K with no debt and was married to someone making $325K. People develop.

Most men with money will choose the younger broke woman over the older woman with a 6 figure career.

Not the case in my dating experience. Even high income men don't like when women are with him for money, or be Sugar Daddies

This thread (and many other DCUM threads) abundantly demonstrate that even older women are with you for the money, so you might as well date younger and hotter if you can.

This thread actually shows that older women are forgiving of men making less, but want financially secure dates who are able to contribute into joint dating experiences at par with women. You have hangups about women wanting your money, and need to process it first before dating.

This thread doesn't show that at all. If you don't make roughly as much as she does, she's not going to date you. And there's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend women aren't in it for the money. In fact they very obviously care more about it than men do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

A 25% downpayment for the house would be from pre-martial founds (and can be 50:50) but it’s jointly owned in entirety by spouses, mortgage is paid from marital funds, all maintenance and renovations. Thus both spouses are equity owners benefiting from its growth. Only a stupid person would agree to give downpayment money or be on a mortgage note but not on a deed. I personally would never move into a house that’s not joint or which I would have to vacate if my partner dies. It’s such a stress in older age!
Men usually marry younger and there is a high component of caregiving for their spouses in older age. I’ve seen couples with 15-30 years difference where the wife had to completely forgo her lifestyle, travel in her 60s etc, to make sure the husband survives. If he lacks integrity and appreciation of her sacrifices and doesn’t feel like giving back some of it in the form of life insurance, that is unfit partner. He should live alone in seniors community, and pay for his care (which is not cheap btw!)
Adult children are not the ones holding your hand in old age, in some cases they fail even to call parents. And they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds. There is usually a pre-martial component in all pensions etc which can be easily appraised by actuary.

I am highly skeptical of this "caregiver" scenario. This is just how gold-diggers rationalize why they should get all the gold and his kids should get nothing.

If she's just in it for his money then he really is better off living in a senior community and paying for his care. From my own observation of senior communities, he won't be there for long. Those places are mostly full of lonely old women.

" they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds." -- the second wife should have enough already from her lifetime of work. She should not need anything from her second husband. Don't marry a broke woman who needs to inherit your kid's money.

While you are skeptical, the date supports the fact that women are more commonly caregivers than men. And this includes all ages: when you look at seniors, pretty much all women with older husbands are caregivers to spouses
https://www.cdc.gov/aging/caregiving/caregiver-brief.html

Again, just a lot of negativity from you about women - broken women, his money, kids money. If you want to not be alone in senior age, bringing a partner into your life is always a mix of finances, legal arrangements etc. A woman who has own assets and lifestyle won't sacrifice it for someone with this attitude. And if you read on finance forum, these senior facilities run 10-15k/month: I know cases where all assets were depleted when men faced long term illnesses or disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

A 25% downpayment for the house would be from pre-martial founds (and can be 50:50) but it’s jointly owned in entirety by spouses, mortgage is paid from marital funds, all maintenance and renovations. Thus both spouses are equity owners benefiting from its growth. Only a stupid person would agree to give downpayment money or be on a mortgage note but not on a deed. I personally would never move into a house that’s not joint or which I would have to vacate if my partner dies. It’s such a stress in older age!
Men usually marry younger and there is a high component of caregiving for their spouses in older age. I’ve seen couples with 15-30 years difference where the wife had to completely forgo her lifestyle, travel in her 60s etc, to make sure the husband survives. If he lacks integrity and appreciation of her sacrifices and doesn’t feel like giving back some of it in the form of life insurance, that is unfit partner. He should live alone in seniors community, and pay for his care (which is not cheap btw!)
Adult children are not the ones holding your hand in old age, in some cases they fail even to call parents. And they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds. There is usually a pre-martial component in all pensions etc which can be easily appraised by actuary.

I am highly skeptical of this "caregiver" scenario. This is just how gold-diggers rationalize why they should get all the gold and his kids should get nothing.

If she's just in it for his money then he really is better off living in a senior community and paying for his care. From my own observation of senior communities, he won't be there for long. Those places are mostly full of lonely old women.

" they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds." -- the second wife should have enough already from her lifetime of work. She should not need anything from her second husband. Don't marry a broke woman who needs to inherit your kid's money.

+1. Female here. Agree entirely with this statement.