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