“Family money” becoming more important in dating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I come from a family of wealth, and my DH comes from the MC family. I met him at the University of Michigan where he attended on an athletic scholarship. He is tall, good-looking, and has good character. We got married after graduation, and I used my family wealth to support his professional dream for three years, and we traveled all over the world. He gave up his dream, and had a real job in the government after that. I would rather be with my DH than marry someone who does not have good character, because money is not everything, especially when I already have money. YMMV.

That's the beauty of having family money. You can spend it on your husband and live a beautiful life free from worries because if he leaves you for another woman, your money is still yours (unless it's not in a trust and you comingled it).

[Anonymous]

I think it makes sense though that she still gets alimony bc women usually lose a lot more in marriage and divorce than men do.

1970 called and wants its alimony arguments back.

These days - and especially in the DCUM demographic - the wife will be an educated professional and her contribution to the marital estate is equal to and often exceeds that of the husband. She is very unlikely to lose more than him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

Not really. A spendthrift trust generates a certain amount of income that the beneficiary can spend as they choose. They may not be able to spend down the principal or lose it in a divorce, but if the beneficiary wants to spend their annual benefit on buying their husband a new car, they usually can.

I suppose if you don't want free money you could always give your share to another family member or your favorite charity.

Yes, I think you phrased it right.

Some men or women may not care for their in laws paying for their vehicle

That's really the bottom line and the in laws know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly , the COL is going way up, it’s really hard to buy a house and replicate a UMC lifestyle. The people who can do it while working regular jobs in a big city have family money: cover house down payment, no burdensome student loans, maybe inherit someone’s car etc

In this case we aren't talking about serious family money. We are just talking about the kids coming from stable boomer families that saved.

I wish I understood this more. I came from a LMC family but my parents would be give me the shirt off their backs. They don’t have much but are willing to help anyway they can. My in-laws are UMC frugal boomers worth millions and we won’t see a cent until they die. If we go to their house and they order Chinese, we have to split the bill with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly , the COL is going way up, it’s really hard to buy a house and replicate a UMC lifestyle. The people who can do it while working regular jobs in a big city have family money: cover house down payment, no burdensome student loans, maybe inherit someone’s car etc

In this case we aren't talking about serious family money. We are just talking about the kids coming from stable boomer families that saved.

I wish I understood this more. I came from a LMC family but my parents would be give me the shirt off their backs. They don’t have much but are willing to help anyway they can. My in-laws are UMC frugal boomers worth millions and we won’t see a cent until they die. If we go to their house and they order Chinese, we have to split the bill with them.

Are you trying to argue that your parents are more noble because they are poor and, therefore, don’t help but theoretically would if they could? Are you the guy sending money to your poor but noble parents instead of saving for your kids’ college? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Also, when you say "we won’t see a cent," it suggests that you feel entitled to your in-laws' money. You are not entitled to it, and you never will be, just as I'm sure you don't intend to leave whatever legacy you have to your kids’ future ex-spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

Not really. A spendthrift trust generates a certain amount of income that the beneficiary can spend as they choose. They may not be able to spend down the principal or lose it in a divorce, but if the beneficiary wants to spend their annual benefit on buying their husband a new car, they usually can.

I suppose if you don't want free money you could always give your share to another family member or your favorite charity.

Yes, I think you phrased it right.

Some men or women may not care for their in laws paying for their vehicle

That's really the bottom line and the in laws know it.

Then pay for your own damn vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I come from a family of wealth, and my DH comes from the MC family. I met him at the University of Michigan where he attended on an athletic scholarship. He is tall, good-looking, and has good character. We got married after graduation, and I used my family wealth to support his professional dream for three years, and we traveled all over the world. He gave up his dream, and had a real job in the government after that. I would rather be with my DH than marry someone who does not have good character, because money is not everything, especially when I already have money. YMMV.

That’s not the point here.

The points you are making are:

Your trust money allows you not to care what your spouse does full time;

Your trust money allows you to take a Club Fed job and live an UMC lifestyle.

Are you even aware that’s your actual points. Good character is not the issue, and densely still TBD. Unless you’re 80 yo and married 50 years.
Besides, did you ever stop and think how shackled your spouse is to your Easy Life due to the sturdy fund your parents gifted you? Good times.

[Anonymous]

Marriage is better among equals. Men can handle having one with more money in relationship but modern women can't. I've friends who married early, husbands supported them in their medical school and training journey with their income and did primary parenting as well and they really look down upon their husbands or got rid of them soon after big doctor salary checks started coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I come from a family of wealth, and my DH comes from the MC family. I met him at the University of Michigan where he attended on an athletic scholarship. He is tall, good-looking, and has good character. We got married after graduation, and I used my family wealth to support his professional dream for three years, and we traveled all over the world. He gave up his dream, and had a real job in the government after that. I would rather be with my DH than marry someone who does not have good character, because money is not everything, especially when I already have money. YMMV.

Sorry, not clear the PP trust funder even works FT or PT. It’s her former athlete spouse who has the club Fed job.

If she was really wealthy she’d be running her family’s office or foundation or art collection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

I don’t get it. A high earning spouse doesn’t like trust fund benefits? Of their own or their spouse?

Why would you make that claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly , the COL is going way up, it’s really hard to buy a house and replicate a UMC lifestyle. The people who can do it while working regular jobs in a big city have family money: cover house down payment, no burdensome student loans, maybe inherit someone’s car etc

In this case we aren't talking about serious family money. We are just talking about the kids coming from stable boomer families that saved.

I wish I understood this more. I came from a LMC family but my parents would be give me the shirt off their backs. They don’t have much but are willing to help anyway they can. My in-laws are UMC frugal boomers worth millions and we won’t see a cent until they die. If we go to their house and they order Chinese, we have to split the bill with them.

That’s called cheap, not frugal.

Retirees should be enjoying their money, not penny pinching their adult children’s families for money, meals out, trips and stuff. So tacky and cheap. It’s like a sport to make other people pay their way.

Pay it forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly , the COL is going way up, it’s really hard to buy a house and replicate a UMC lifestyle. The people who can do it while working regular jobs in a big city have family money: cover house down payment, no burdensome student loans, maybe inherit someone’s car etc

In this case we aren't talking about serious family money. We are just talking about the kids coming from stable boomer families that saved.

I wish I understood this more. I came from a LMC family but my parents would be give me the shirt off their backs. They don’t have much but are willing to help anyway they can. My in-laws are UMC frugal boomers worth millions and we won’t see a cent until they die. If we go to their house and they order Chinese, we have to split the bill with them.

That’s called cheap, not frugal.

Retirees should be enjoying their money, not penny pinching their adult children’s families for money, meals out, trips and stuff. So tacky and cheap. It’s like a sport to make other people pay their way.

Pay it forward.

I actually think it's an honor and privilege to pay for my parents, even though they are financially well-off and I am not. They spent over $400,000 on my education, so it’s the least I can do! On the other hand, my in-laws didn’t contribute anything to my spouse’s education, and they take thousands of dollars away each month that could instead go into 529 plans for our children.

Takeaway - if your parents aren't a burden to your spouse or children, then consider yourself a winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

I don’t get it. A high earning spouse doesn’t like trust fund benefits? Of their own or their spouse?

Why would you make that claim?

When in-laws are so involved in all financial decisions the marriage will never be between just 2 people.
I dated uber wealthy individuals - they would never tolerate it. It’s not for people who are successful financially on their own.

Based on responses here, majority are not really from wealthy families. More so the boomers who saved. Really wealthy person won’t charge their kids family for Chinese food . So tacky, indeed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

I don’t get it. A high earning spouse doesn’t like trust fund benefits? Of their own or their spouse?

Why would you make that claim?

When in-laws are so involved in all financial decisions the marriage will never be between just 2 people.
I dated uber wealthy individuals - they would never tolerate it. It’s not for people who are successful financially on their own.

Based on responses here, majority are not really from wealthy families. More so the boomers who saved. Really wealthy person won’t charge their kids family for Chinese food . So tacky, indeed!

Sure they will. First generation rich dgaf about tact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trusts protect adult kids and grand kids from bad divorce situations.
They also protect said kids from second and third family drama and loss of financials.

What’s the word everyone needs in their revocable and irrevocable trusts? Mutual descendants only.

Spendthrift trusts can also protect the next generation from their spendthrift parents, or they can protect a direct descendant from their spendthrift spouse.

This is how 99% of trusts work. Posts like OP's are because some uneducated people think they are entitled to another family's money by marriage, which is just not the case and never will be. Think about it from the perspective of the person who earned the money and set up the trust.

I think a marriage into a family like yours: the husband and wife need to realize they will never be the only two people in that marriage.

Not everyone is attracted to that kind of arrangement, especially when you are talking about high earning individuals themselves.

Go in eyes wide open.

I don’t get it. A high earning spouse doesn’t like trust fund benefits? Of their own or their spouse?

Why would you make that claim?

When in-laws are so involved in all financial decisions the marriage will never be between just 2 people.
I dated uber wealthy individuals - they would never tolerate it. It’s not for people who are successful financially on their own.

Based on responses here, majority are not really from wealthy families. More so the boomers who saved. Really wealthy person won’t charge their kids family for Chinese food . So tacky, indeed!

Sure they will. First generation rich dgaf about tact.

No man with self respect and a good career of his own would tolerate it