Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very obvious what’s going on here: OP is either not married or divorced but in either case is currently single, and it irritates OP that other people talk about net worth by including their spouse because she or he feels like they can’t compete with that and it makes them feel inferior.

Apart from the “feeling inferior” part, this is correct. I’m the OP, I’m single, and I do find data around net worth to be of little help.

Do you believe that one person with a $2 million net worth is in the same financial position as a husband and wife with a combined $2 million net worth? Because that would be pretty ridiculous IMO.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I never understood why people do this. While it’s not quite as dumb as my saying, “Elon Musk and I together are billionaires!“, it’s pretty close.

Just head on over to the relationship forum if you don’t believe that marriages end. And even if you do stay together, marriage requires a lot of compromise and sacrifice. If you consider net worth as a measure of financial freedom, the drawbacks of marriage really eliminate a lot of that “freedom.“

Moreover, if two 35-year-olds each have $500,000 saved, why do they suddenly become millionaires when they get married?? But it makes people feel better to say that they have a net worth of $1 million instead of $500,000, so I guess we’ll keep using this silly standard.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Anonymous wrote:Though not as passionate as OP, I can kind of see were he/she is coming from. Those stats are combining the assets of two people and comparing it to the assets of one person. The married couple will obviously have significantly higher expenses and there is about a 50% chance that your assets will be cut in half if/when you divorce. The haters on this thread probably like the stat because they feel more accomplished than they actually are.

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.

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.

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.