Separate finances: how to deal if one spouse isn't saving enough for retirement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re either all in or you’re out. If you really love him, you will pool your retirement and find a way to make sure his kids get to college. If you can’t do those things, you have no business professing your love and being married.

+1 his kids sure get screwed if your income counts towards college and you are not contributing to theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually every female breadwinner I know has OP’s attitude.

Yeah, true that! Not sure why.

It's because they never actually get to recreate in being a woman. Women like OP get to enjoy all the upside of being a modern, professional woman in their careers. Opportunity! Independence! Adventure! Money! Recognition! However, on the personal side, when career women have kids, they realize that they often sacrifice the few benefits that women historically have had at home. Namely, women weren't expected to play both roles of provider and caretaker. At the end of the day, as awestruck as OP is over the beautiful partnership she has with her new husband, she's still be stuck financing the whole venture. You even could argue that she's expected to play a husband-like role to the ex-wife. OP's current husband is still basically spoiling another woman at OP's eventual expense. OP will either be divorced again, or she will do without in retirement while the ex-wife will have enjoyed new outfits when she wanted them, weekend trips, etc. So empowering!

Did you miss the part where this is a blended family AND her DH is not bringing to the table everything he could? That makes a big difference. It's one thing to go all in when it's not a blended family (whether OP were a man or woman), let alone where her DH is paying his ex's part. Why should she subsidize him if he can't deal with his ex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually every female breadwinner I know has OP’s attitude.

Yeah, true that! Not sure why.

It's because they never actually get to recreate in being a woman. Women like OP get to enjoy all the upside of being a modern, professional woman in their careers. Opportunity! Independence! Adventure! Money! Recognition! However, on the personal side, when career women have kids, they realize that they often sacrifice the few benefits that women historically have had at home. Namely, women weren't expected to play both roles of provider and caretaker. At the end of the day, as awestruck as OP is over the beautiful partnership she has with her new husband, she's still be stuck financing the whole venture. You even could argue that she's expected to play a husband-like role to the ex-wife. OP's current husband is still basically spoiling another woman at OP's eventual expense. OP will either be divorced again, or she will do without in retirement while the ex-wife will have enjoyed new outfits when she wanted them, weekend trips, etc. So empowering!

Did you miss the part where this is a blended family AND her DH is not bringing to the table everything he could? That makes a big difference. It's one thing to go all in when it's not a blended family (whether OP were a man or woman), let alone where her DH is paying his ex's part. Why should she subsidize him if he can't deal with his ex?

Did you miss the part where OP said he's been maxing his 401(k) for two years now, but it's unlikely that he'll ever catch up? He is getting too late of a start and, as a PP pointed out, how much would child support from a mentally ill woman be anyway? 1,000/month? Better than nothing, but it sounds like most of the damage has been done by his saving almost nothing up to this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I made 5x what my wife made for our entire marriage. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t “subsidize” her retirement?

Did she have a couple of kids with someone else?

Np here. What difference would that make? By the time retirement rolls around, presumably any kids are self-sufficient adults. Op’s dh will have some money in his name, op will have money in her name. I can’t imagine being married and thinking of our retirement funds as seperate assets. That just doesn’t make sense, even when it’s a second marriage with a blended family.

You are naive. The difference it would make is that OP would literally be taking money away from her children to subsidize her husband. In your case, you and your wife raised your children together, there are no blended family issues.

But sure, keep sticking your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I made 5x what my wife made for our entire marriage. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t “subsidize” her retirement?

Did she have a couple of kids with someone else?

Np here. What difference would that make? By the time retirement rolls around, presumably any kids are self-sufficient adults. Op’s dh will have some money in his name, op will have money in her name. I can’t imagine being married and thinking of our retirement funds as seperate assets. That just doesn’t make sense, even when it’s a second marriage with a blended family.

This is what I don't get. I am not divorced but have outearned my DH for our entire marriage. So not only is our lifestyle funded more by me, but so are our retirement savings. By the time you retire hopefully you know this is going to be a long term relationship so the idea of subsidizing shouldn't be as big a deal as it might be earlier when you want to protect your assets. Maybe given the prenup OP is thinking this isn't a long term thing? But in that case she may be divorced before retirement, or not too long, after so that would limit the subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really love this guy, you could consider cross subsiding him. This is what (virtually all) men do for (virtually all) women and have done since the dawn of time.

+1 I married a woman with 2 kids and few assets but I knew it and it was what I accepted as part of the package deal. While I wish she had had a lot of assets it was my choice and I’m happy with it. I didn’t rush into the relationship until I knew I really liked her children and they liked me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea why anyone in your situation would have ever gotten remarried. Helpful, I know. Why on earth did you marry this man? Is it because your exes moved on, and you wanted to look like you still “had it” and weren’t knocked on your @ss by your divorce to your social circles? Is it because you were scared of aging alone, and you thought this would insure against that? Was this an affair that became public and you needed to “legitimize” it by getting married? You seem like a planner with foresight, so I’m stumped.

You have gained nothing and even his kids will be further screwed when they apply for college financial aid. There’s already going to be a rift between the kids when one set has college paid for, but now his kids will hate you even more when they have to account for your income in the college application process, but won’t benefit from it.

I’d tell DH what you laid out here. I’d be completely resentful if I were in your situation, too. Tell him that he needs to nut up and get CS out of his ex or that this isn’t going to work out long term.

Agree with 100% above. OP..YOU are his plan for retirement. You really should have went over these things before you married the guy. ( Sorry..I know that is not helpful). Hardly ever is it a good idea to marry a man with kids. All his resources will probably go to supporting the original family he created which they should since he made those life decisions and should honor them. Too much baggage! You still have the option in future to end marriage based on these circumstances and save your retirement for you. Blended families are complicated.

[Anonymous]

Two thoughts:
1. You are now a family and you just deal with it.
2. If you are so into mine vs. his why did you not understand this before you got married?
He has been financially irresponsible but you sounds like a successful person who should have figured this out early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really love this guy, you could consider cross subsiding him. This is what (virtually all) men do for (virtually all) women and have done since the dawn of time.

+1 I married a woman with 2 kids and few assets but I knew it and it was what I accepted as part of the package deal. While I wish she had had a lot of assets it was my choice and I’m happy with it. I didn’t rush into the relationship until I knew I really liked her children and they liked me.

NO OP..do NOT do this!

[Anonymous]

If he’s a professor he doesn’t have to retire. The stresses of being a professor are primarily from having to produce a lot of original research to get tenure and promotions. Once he’s retirement age he can just keep teaching and get his entire paycheck. Stopping or significantly reducing research amounts to more than a 60% reduction in work - especially since he will be used to his classes at that point.

He will have summers and all breaks off, you can travel easily. This is the ideal retirement situation. I don’t get why you’re stressing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he’s a professor he doesn’t have to retire. The stresses of being a professor are primarily from having to produce a lot of original research to get tenure and promotions. Once he’s retirement age he can just keep teaching and get his entire paycheck. Stopping or significantly reducing research amounts to more than a 60% reduction in work - especially since he will be used to his classes at that point.

He will have summers and all breaks off, you can travel easily. This is the ideal retirement situation. I don’t get why you’re stressing about it.

There are lots of downsides to academic positions but retirement isn’t one of them. Suppose you retire at 60. When he’s 60 he stops doing research and just teaches the standard classes each semester. These classes are already prepped, they’re a couple times a week and it’s not a big time commitment. You guys can still go out to dinner, take up a new hobbies, and travel all summer. From 60 to 70 he’s making his full salary AND maxing our retirement accounts AND staying engaged in his discipline. It’s a great gradual way to transition to retirement without giving up his salary. At 70 - after 10 extra years of retirement contributions, he should be able to officially retire and stop teaching. Then you can relocate to a different geographical location if that’s what you want. Honestly, relocation is the only real benefit of officially retiring. He has a really good deal with his job. Many professors stay until they’re 80 because they enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

^ I’m actually surprised you guys haven’t talked about this! It’s a pretty significant perk of being a professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he’s a professor he doesn’t have to retire. The stresses of being a professor are primarily from having to produce a lot of original research to get tenure and promotions. Once he’s retirement age he can just keep teaching and get his entire paycheck. Stopping or significantly reducing research amounts to more than a 60% reduction in work - especially since he will be used to his classes at that point.

He will have summers and all breaks off, you can travel easily. This is the ideal retirement situation. I don’t get why you’re stressing about it.

This is so dumb. This plan only works if you don't get Alzheimer's, some other form of dementia, or have a long chronic illness like many of Americans.

Planning to work until you drop is a no plan at all. If/When DH gets sick in retirement, OP will be on the hook for his care and he'll lose his income. This wouldn't be a problem if OP actually had a marriage mindset, but this thread has established that OP doesn't.

OP wants a partnership when it suits her. I am befuddled as to why she got married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really love this guy, you could consider cross subsiding him. This is what (virtually all) men do for (virtually all) women and have done since the dawn of time.

+1 I married a woman with 2 kids and few assets but I knew it and it was what I accepted as part of the package deal. While I wish she had had a lot of assets it was my choice and I’m happy with it. I didn’t rush into the relationship until I knew I really liked her children and they liked me.

NO OP..do NOT do this!

don't worry, she won't lol

[Anonymous]

Po, can your DHs children attend these schools you mention for free? Will DH just need to cover room and board? Can your children attend these schools for free?

I have to agree with the others that you should not have married this man. Since it is too late for that, you need to decide if you are all in and consider your DH and his kids To be family in the same way you think of your own kids. if not, you should divorce.