Read what I wrote "fiancee", i.e, the woman. He, OP gets it. His fiancee does not and will not get it. She's not getting that by tying up her income that impacts their collective future. These two should not marry. |
Oh hello fiancee. Female here, and I'm with OP. Don't marry her. She seems selfish and it does sound like she will be taking from your kids to give her kid what she can't afford. Given her financial situation, her plan is ridiculous. I repeat - DO NOT MARRY HER. There are plenty of nice women in DC who have their shit together. Of course, there are plenty of those who also do not, and it sounds like you have one of them. |
wow, you're thick. Let me spell this out for you. (and p.s. I'm not OP) Because fiancee insists on paying for private school tuition she can't afford, she has less to contribute to the household and retirement. OP would have to step up, which means that there may be less money for college tuition for HIS kids. |
And to start with, they will need to pay off all her student loans and other debt to get out of the red. |
In what way would he have to step up that would take oh so much away from his kids???? How would you feel if someone said "Let's get married. But uh you need to take your child out of private. That's our money now"? What's wrong with OP stepping up? If he can't afford a wife and stepchild without having to depend on her pennies, he shouldn't get married. To anyone. He's insulting her finances but she seems to be doing pretty good. She's living independently AND sending her child to private. This is really not about her irresponsibility but his need to have a 2nd income and live comfortably off of someone else. |
The typical jealous woman who hates the idea of a female being provided for. You don't have the looks, body and personality to attract a man to take care of you so begrudge the woman who does. You had to work hard and struggle so every woman should huh? |
NP here but think of it this way. Let's say they each make $100K per year. So, by himself, OP is saving X for retirement, Y divided by 2 for his two kids' college funds. Fiance is covering her monthly bills, paying down student loans and spending Z on private school tuition. Per the OP, she is not saving any money for retirement or her kids college. If they get married, they have $200K combined income. OP will still be saving X for retirement and Y divided by 4 to save for all of the kids' college funds equally. Fiance is still covering her monthly bills, paying down student loans and spending Z on private school tuition. The only extra money available is the various efficiencies created by two families in one house instead of maintaining two separate households. |
|
^^^
What monthly expenses would Fiancee be paying? Wouldn't they be for the shared household? How/Why does OP's salary automatically get split into 4 in your scenario? If Fiancee can pay for private BEFORE marriage, why not after? Seems like OP resents the private thing because he cant afford it for his girls. Why doesnt anyone answer how YOU would feel as the girl's father OR the mother? Stepchild's standard of living should not go down because of this marriage. |
My point is there are fixed monthly expenses (food, clothing) that are there regardless of whether the money is pooled or not. Other expenses will decrease a little (rent/mortgage) although they will probably need a larger house to accommodate more people so that expense is reduced but not by half when they move in together. That will provide a little extra money but probably not enough to adequately fund fiancé's retirement. OP's salary isn't split into four, OP's contribution to the college fund is split into four. Like I said, this assumes OP is contributing equally to all four kids' college funds. Otherwise, there will be no contributions for the fiancé's kids (which it appears to be the case now). If I was the girls' parent I wouldn't be paying for private school if I lived in an excellent school district unless I was fully funding my retirement or unless there was a special need. |
| But the parents ARE paying for private. That shouldn't change because OP wants the benefits of marriage without the sacrifice. |
|
I don't mean to hijack this thread too far, but what's the big deal with having student loan debt in your 30s? My spouse racked up 200K in law school debt, graduated at 25, and at 38 still carries about 50K which is at very low interest. We're much more concerned with saving money for a house and retirement at this point. Not everyone makes bank immediately and in a sustained fashion.
Now if you had 60K of undergraduate debt that you carried around for 20 years, that may be more concerning... |
|
Just reread the OP.
Seems Fiancee is no worse off than any single mom. Actually she may be a bit better off with a contributing dad in the pic. She earns enough to pay rent in NoVa, cover her basics and send her child to private. Why is OP so focused on retirement? What is she? 60? Her DD is just 7 so she's likely young enough to be able to contribute to retirement in the future-as her income increases and/or DD grows. I think OP is selfish, doesn't understand what marriage is all about and uses her retirement as a coverup for wanting her to yank her child out of private. Can't make his girls feel less. |
Ha. I married a hot trust fund baby, and I have the body of a 22 year old. You don't know me at all. |
Yeah. And I'm Melania Trump. But for some reason I have a problem with another woman marrying semi-ok---Said no trophy wife ever. |
I think you skipped the part about all of her student loans and cc debt. That it would take her at least five years to pay off if she had no tuition to pay. |