Your spouse’s net worth is not yours!

[Anonymous]

You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is really dumb. There is a huge financial benefit to combining two households into one household. That is obvious to people who are married, and that why divorce is expensive --- you have to double up a lot of costs that were combined before.

You don't need to be married to share living expenses with somebody.

Marriage is not just about sharing living expenses. Spouse's are not roommates. When you are married you also *legally* share debt obligations and your assets are jointly owned. If you inherit money it becomes a marital asset. Same with bonuses or real estate sale proceeds. If you die your spouse inherits your estate unless you've gone to great lengths to prevent that. If you have a pension your spouse is generally entitled to a survivors benefit.

If you don't like this, don't get married, bit the reason net worth is calculated as a couple not individually us because legally you are both entitled to it unless you have an air tight prenup and estate planning, which very few people do (even wealthy people).

What's mine is yours. True for marriage, not fir roommates.

This is not true as long as you keep it separate and don't commingle it.

Yet again -- unreliable armchair legal advice on DCUM.

Wow, talk about unreliable advice. Inheritances belong to the heir, and only the heir, as long as they have not been commingled. It is very important for married couples to be aware of this fact. Once the funds are commingled, they belong to both partners.

[Anonymous]

Okay fine if you want to do the math your way, so DH brings 50% to the table and I bring 50% to the table to form our HHI. Using my 50% to contribute to half a household’s costs (shared with DH) vs an entire household cost by myself leaves a lot more disposable income.

Does this logic make you feel better OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is really dumb. There is a huge financial benefit to combining two households into one household. That is obvious to people who are married, and that why divorce is expensive --- you have to double up a lot of costs that were combined before.

You don't need to be married to share living expenses with somebody.

Marriage is not just about sharing living expenses. Spouse's are not roommates. When you are married you also *legally* share debt obligations and your assets are jointly owned. If you inherit money it becomes a marital asset. Same with bonuses or real estate sale proceeds. If you die your spouse inherits your estate unless you've gone to great lengths to prevent that. If you have a pension your spouse is generally entitled to a survivors benefit.

If you don't like this, don't get married, bit the reason net worth is calculated as a couple not individually us because legally you are both entitled to it unless you have an air tight prenup and estate planning, which very few people do (even wealthy people).

What's mine is yours. True for marriage, not fir roommates.

This is not true as long as you keep it separate and don't commingle it.

Lol good luck when the that. Sketchy people will try to hide assets to keep it out of a difference vision of marital property but in states that do marital property this is not legal and can get you penalized in the divorce decree. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is single with not kids, obviously.

Okay JD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is really dumb. There is a huge financial benefit to combining two households into one household. That is obvious to people who are married, and that why divorce is expensive --- you have to double up a lot of costs that were combined before.

You don't need to be married to share living expenses with somebody.

Marriage is not just about sharing living expenses. Spouse's are not roommates. When you are married you also *legally* share debt obligations and your assets are jointly owned. If you inherit money it becomes a marital asset. Same with bonuses or real estate sale proceeds. If you die your spouse inherits your estate unless you've gone to great lengths to prevent that. If you have a pension your spouse is generally entitled to a survivors benefit.

If you don't like this, don't get married, bit the reason net worth is calculated as a couple not individually us because legally you are both entitled to it unless you have an air tight prenup and estate planning, which very few people do (even wealthy people).

What's mine is yours. True for marriage, not fir roommates.

This is not true as long as you keep it separate and don't commingle it.

Lol good luck when the that. Sketchy people will try to hide assets to keep it out of a difference vision of marital property but in states that do marital property this is not legal and can get you penalized in the divorce decree. Look it up.

Keeping an inheritance separate and not comingled is neither sketchy nor hiding assets. What an heir inherits is his or hers alone, regardless of marital status.

[Anonymous]

This is ridiculous. I have a good income, but DH is 2-3x depending on bonus. His career benefitted from my running household, managing childcare, and working PT when kids were younger. Not saying he did not work hard, but if he were running home at 5pm in the early years instead of not even thinking about when kids were picked up or fed, he would make less now.

Not worried about divorce, but if we were in a bad place I would not feel bad about claiming half of our post-marriage assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? I'm the higher earner in my marriage, and I still feel like the financial hit would be too great. Two households! I don't really understand this post.

OP here. Higher-earner, lower-earner, non-earner—doesn’t matter. Your net worth is your household net worth divided by two.

The law sees it differently OP literally everyone in this thread thinks you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is really dumb. There is a huge financial benefit to combining two households into one household. That is obvious to people who are married, and that why divorce is expensive --- you have to double up a lot of costs that were combined before.

You don't need to be married to share living expenses with somebody.

Marriage is not just about sharing living expenses. Spouse's are not roommates. When you are married you also *legally* share debt obligations and your assets are jointly owned. If you inherit money it becomes a marital asset. Same with bonuses or real estate sale proceeds. If you die your spouse inherits your estate unless you've gone to great lengths to prevent that. If you have a pension your spouse is generally entitled to a survivors benefit.

If you don't like this, don't get married, bit the reason net worth is calculated as a couple not individually us because legally you are both entitled to it unless you have an air tight prenup and estate planning, which very few people do (even wealthy people).

What's mine is yours. True for marriage, not fir roommates.

This is not true as long as you keep it separate and don't commingle it.

Lol good luck when the that. Sketchy people will try to hide assets to keep it out of a difference vision of marital property but in states that do marital property this is not legal and can get you penalized in the divorce decree. Look it up.

Keeping an inheritance separate and not comingled is neither sketchy nor hiding assets. What an heir inherits is his or hers alone, regardless of marital status.

Here are two other scenarios where inheritance becomes marital property. These are outside the definition of “commingling”

Using the inheritance
How the inheritance is used during the marriage can also be a factor. For example, if the inheritance is used to pay off a joint mortgage or debt, or to purchase a jointly held property, it may become marital property.

Family heirlooms
If an inheritance is a family heirloom that is displayed in the home, it may be subject to division based on the court's interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? I'm the higher earner in my marriage, and I still feel like the financial hit would be too great. Two households! I don't really understand this post.

OP here. Higher-earner, lower-earner, non-earner—doesn’t matter. Your net worth is your household net worth divided by two.

That’s not how (checks notes) everyone else looks at it but really interesting Ted Talk. Thx for your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is single with not kids, obviously.

Okay JD.

Honestly the OP sounds as crazy as JD Vance. Both pathetic crazy people trying to control how everyone is living their lives.

[Anonymous]

Comparing household net worth is kind of pointless. But OP is correct in that the combined income of two people vs a single person is not a fair comparison. One of the reasons is that the majority of married people are going to lose their ass in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're immeasurably stupid, OP:

1. Everyone knows they're entitled to half, BUT -
2. Lots of people, especially sole-earning males with wives who do not control the accounts, can hide large portions of their wealth so the other gets very little. It takes MONEY to pursue financial discovery.

3. People get used to a certain lifestyle that half of the HHI would not allow. Deprivation is RELATIVE.

How #2?

It doesn't take that much $$ to pursue financial discovery. If you know As***le spouse has it, you know it's worth the cost. Also smart women/men know the family finances. It's silly not to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is ridiculous. I have a good income, but DH is 2-3x depending on bonus. His career benefitted from my running household, managing childcare, and working PT when kids were younger. Not saying he did not work hard, but if he were running home at 5pm in the early years instead of not even thinking about when kids were picked up or fed, he would make less now.

Not worried about divorce, but if we were in a bad place I would not feel bad about claiming half of our post-marriage assets.

This 1000%! Whether you work PT, FT or SAHP, if you are fully responsible for the childcare, the other spouse/partner greatly benefits from that. I went SAHP when first was born. It allowed spouse to not worry at ALL about the kids. Sick kid, I'm dealing with it. No "I cannot travel this week, as my spouse also has to travel for work and it's my turn to be on kid duty. So send John instead on this important trip that might be a promotion booster". The perks of never having to worry about the kids is huge in career advancement.

[Anonymous]

You are an idiot, OP, comparing your neighbor’s net worth to your spouse’s net worth.

Dh and I got married and have accumulated significant net worth over the past 20 years. I have not worked for the past 8 years. Yes, it is our net worth, not just his.