Stop including your spouse’s net worth as part of your own!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

+ 1. No one in our close or extended family, on both sides, our big circle of friends and their near-family is divorced. No one. 50% divorce must be a White Person thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a sahm. Dh always says he works for me and our kids. He earns all the money. I spend it. He earns a seven figure income and we have a $10m net worth. Yes, it is our net worth. We have been married for 20 years. We had negative net worth when we got married.

Lol that’s so big of your husband to say. Not. It’s weird.

[Anonymous]

Do you know what a “household” is, moron? Do you know what joint accounts are?

Elon Musk and I don’t have a “household” or joint accounts. I do run a household with DH and we have joint accounts (and separate ones). I am not Elon Musks’s beneficiary; I am my husband’s beneficiary, and he is mine.

Do you have two brain cells to rub together? How do you not fall down more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right people. We should stop speaking about money that is legally ours and which would be awarded to us in case of divorce because someone on DCUM finds it annoying.

Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m the OP.

All assets accrued during the marriage, whether resulting from one earner and one SAHP or two earners, belong to both spouses. However, each spouse should consider only 50% of those assets as belonging to them individually. So if your net worth collectively at the time of marriage was zero and is currently $2 million (inheritances aside), you should consider yourself as having a net worth of $1 million.

You are simply incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

+ 1. No one in our close or extended family, on both sides, our big circle of friends and their near-family is divorced. No one. 50% divorce must be a White Person thing.

Nice try. Black women are leading the pack!

https://www.justgreatlawyers.com/legal-guides/divorce-statistics#:~:text=Black%20women%3A%2030.8%20divorces%20per,15.1%20divorces%20per%201%2C000%20people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

+ 1. No one in our close or extended family, on both sides, our big circle of friends and their near-family is divorced. No one. 50% divorce must be a White Person thing.

Nice try. Black women are leading the pack!

https://www.justgreatlawyers.com/legal-guides/divorce-statistics#:~:text=Black%20women%3A%2030.8%20divorces%20per,15.1%20divorces%20per%201%2C000%20people

The PP didn’t say they were black or a woman…

[Anonymous]

OP are you married? Kind of curious how your husband reacts to you claiming only your own net worth as opposed to a household. Talking about split assets really raises a man's heart rate in my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

Your anecdotal stories have nothing to do with actual statistics and the future. That is the opposite of "world view." It's basically a toss up whether you will get divorced or not. This is a huge risk if you have big assets going into a marriage.

It’s not a toss up though. If you control for age, income and education level, divorce rates are much much lower than 50% for educated wealthy people.

And length of marriage. By far, most divorces happen in the first 10 years. If you make it past 10 years, your odds of divorce are quite small.

yes. OP seems to think that divorce is almost a given. if you make it past 10 years, its much more likely that the marriage ends when one person will pass away first and then guess what? the surviving spouse has the entire net worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

+ 1. No one in our close or extended family, on both sides, our big circle of friends and their near-family is divorced. No one. 50% divorce must be a White Person thing.

Nice try. Black women are leading the pack!

https://www.justgreatlawyers.com/legal-guides/divorce-statistics#:~:text=Black%20women%3A%2030.8%20divorces%20per,15.1%20divorces%20per%201%2C000%20people

The PP didn’t say they were black or a woman…

Neither did anyone else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

+ 1. No one in our close or extended family, on both sides, our big circle of friends and their near-family is divorced. No one. 50% divorce must be a White Person thing.

Nice try. Black women are leading the pack!

https://www.justgreatlawyers.com/legal-guides/divorce-statistics#:~:text=Black%20women%3A%2030.8%20divorces%20per,15.1%20divorces%20per%201%2C000%20people

The PP didn’t say they were black or a woman…

You're right, but they're definitely a racist. Regardless, they're wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I’m reading the threads about how much is needed to retire, etc. I do find myself looking to see if someone is talking about the amount for themselves or a couple. So in that sense, it kind of does make a difference when referring to net worth.

No, it doesn’t. Again, it’s not like being a couple is twice the cost of being single. It’s not even close.

I know many couples with expenses far more than double those of a single person. Usually marriage is entered into with the intention of having kids, and that drastically raises expenses - daycare, college, food, braces, and on and on. A single person, or one who divorced before kids, will be able to stretch a $1 million or $2 million net worth much farther.

And lastly, one of the main things that eats up net worth is medical expenses later in life. With two people, the risk of encountering that situation is exactly double than for a single person.

See, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Everybody agrees that families with children are more expensive than couples without kids. That’s a complete no-brainer. We’re talking about something different entirely.

As a general rule, being married has financial advantages over being single. Anyone who has ever had to pay a “single supplement” for an all-inclusive trip knows this very well. It’s annoying, but it’s true.

Our system is set up to favor marriage. The tax system, the benefits system, all of it. To give just one of many examples, my spouse has never worked outside the home, but because we are married we will collect 50 percent more in social security benefits than the OP would. Why? The spousal benefit.

No one can credibly argue that from a financial standpoint is better to be single in this country than married.

If you don't make much money, it's understandable that you want to include your husbands assets in your net worth. But it's not the same thing as a single person with the same assets, as their expenses are quite a bit less. I can see how it's slightly more economical for couples because you are sharing housing, but your situation is likely temporary, as you will most likely get divorced and probably split assets 50/50.

This is all so nutty. Married people will not "most likely get divorced."

Seriously. What a strange world view. DH and I have been married 22 years. We're not getting divorced. My parents were married 51 years, ILs 48, my BIL/SIL been married 35. Most of my friends are in 20+ year marriages. In the couples in my world divorce is definitely a rarity.

Your anecdotal stories have nothing to do with actual statistics and the future. That is the opposite of "world view." It's basically a toss up whether you will get divorced or not. This is a huge risk if you have big assets going into a marriage.

It’s not a toss up though. If you control for age, income and education level, divorce rates are much much lower than 50% for educated wealthy people.

And length of marriage. By far, most divorces happen in the first 10 years. If you make it past 10 years, your odds of divorce are quite small.

yes. OP seems to think that divorce is almost a given. if you make it past 10 years, its much more likely that the marriage ends when one person will pass away first and then guess what? the surviving spouse has the entire net worth.

I'm pretty sure there are several people posting on this thread. Nobody cares about your spouse that you mooch of, u old hen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a sahm. Dh always says he works for me and our kids. He earns all the money. I spend it. He earns a seven figure income and we have a $10m net worth. Yes, it is our net worth. We have been married for 20 years. We had negative net worth when we got married.

Lol that’s so big of your husband to say. Not. It’s weird.

You don’t think fathers all around the world say that they work hard for their family?

Maybe if you found someone to love you and want to give you the world, you wouldn’t be on a parenting website complaining about women with shared finances. When Dh had $100, he gave me his all and he still does twenty years later.

We were both gushing over how adorable and perfect our daughter is. We are a family and our finances are joint.

[Anonymous]

I’m just wondering in what scenario adult women talk about net worth in any kind of setting. I am in my mid forties. I have childless and moms of college student friends and we have not once discussed net worth. When I was very young, we may have discussed starting salaries but that was decades ago. It is in very poor taste to discuss money. I would never tell anyone how much Dh earns or how much we have saved and yes, it is our joint finances.

The only place I write HHI and net worth is on dcum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m just wondering in what scenario adult women talk about net worth in any kind of setting. I am in my mid forties. I have childless and moms of college student friends and we have not once discussed net worth. When I was very young, we may have discussed starting salaries but that was decades ago. It is in very poor taste to discuss money. I would never tell anyone how much Dh earns or how much we have saved and yes, it is our joint finances.

The only place I write HHI and net worth is on dcum.

+1 Only complete blowhards talk about this stuff in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just wondering in what scenario adult women talk about net worth in any kind of setting. I am in my mid forties. I have childless and moms of college student friends and we have not once discussed net worth. When I was very young, we may have discussed starting salaries but that was decades ago. It is in very poor taste to discuss money. I would never tell anyone how much Dh earns or how much we have saved and yes, it is our joint finances.

The only place I write HHI and net worth is on dcum.

+1 Only complete blowhards talk about this stuff in real life.

This. I have never had a net worth conversation with anyone in my life. The only time I even think about it is in the context of retirement planning and then it's really not net worth (I exclude home equity and emergency cash and focus on invested assets, because that is what will provide the income we need in retirement). I have no idea what OP is suggesting - should I only consider have of our combined net worth for retirement? Should I only plan for my own retirement, with half our assets, and tell my wife to plan hers, with the other half? Should I plan on purchasing a retirement home that is suitable for a single person? It's nonsense.

Yes, $2m in retirement means something different for a single person than a couple. But that doesn't mean that married couples shoudl presume they will retire on half their assets.

It's apparent that OP just feeling a little bitter (despite her protests to the contrary) about her single status.