Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I always love how women feel their money is their money and men are supposed to provide.
If you reversed the genders here, op would be savaged!!!
That’s in a situation where the wife gave birth to his kids and sacrificed her career by either mommy tracking or staying home. Not a later in life marriage where the mother of his children is neither caring for not financially providing for their children and as a result he is not saving enough for retirement.
Anonymous wrote:I always love how women feel their money is their money and men are supposed to provide.
If you reversed the genders here, op would be savaged!!!
Anonymous wrote:I think the real answer is twofold: you will subsidize his retirement if you want to have a nicer one than he can afford, and you need to tell him that you're worried you're going to resent that and he's essentially avoiding conflict with his ex at the expense of setting up conflict with you.
He needs to get child support, even if every dollar goes straight into 529s. Explain that your income will reduce his kids' financial aid, even though you maintain separate finances. He likely will not catch up to you (you have a higher income, another supporting parent, and more assets), but by making this change and pursuing child support you will likely resent the discrepancy less.
I understand separate finances for families such as yours, but I do think that once the kids are out and established, it doesn't make as much sense to think of the money buckets as completely separate. If you are married to this person in retirement, aside from any money in trust for kids, the retirement pretty much has to be viewed as joint for it to work on any level. I think you actually get that, which is why you're thinking about it now and bothered. But if he makes changes, seeks support (and either doesn't get it or gets it but it all goes to 529s), and keeps maxing out his 401k, you have to just accept that you'll be springing for any retirement "upgrades" with your bigger bankroll - be they trips or outings or living in a nicer area.
Anonymous wrote:OP here.
So, DH is calculating that he will need $10-15K/year for his kids to attend his or another association college. Big savings but not free. He makes $75K/year.
He is 48 and has $45K in his 401(k). No pension.
He is in the humanities and not a researcher (so his career is really based on the teaching at this point), and was thinking he'd retire around 65. But that's a number in his head, assuming he's well enough to teach up until then. He doesn't want to teach forever and just hang on to hold onto the income.
Anonymous wrote:OP here.
So, DH is calculating that he will need $10-15K/year for his kids to attend his or another association college. Big savings but not free. He makes $75K/year.
He is 48 and has $45K in his 401(k). No pension.
He is in the humanities and not a researcher (so his career is really based on the teaching at this point), and was thinking he'd retire around 65. But that's a number in his head, assuming he's well enough to teach up until then. He doesn't want to teach forever and just hang on to hold onto the income.
Anonymous wrote:I always love how women feel their money is their money and men are supposed to provide.
If you reversed the genders here, op would be savaged!!!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be really helpful for a post like this to list out the specific information (i.e. annual salaries, total respective retirement savings, ages, etc.).
Why?
This is about money but it's not. Reading the OP and her follow up, I'm guessing OP would be happy to "subsidize" her DH's retirement and be all in, if he were. As long as he's choosing his ex's feelings over hers about child support, he's not all in.
Anonymous wrote:I always love how women feel their money is their money and men are supposed to provide.
If you reversed the genders here, op would be savaged!!!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My retirement fund is 4x larger than my DW. Mine is enough to cover for both of us (I think) so we are perfectly okay with smaller wife's fund. Not sure why one person having a bigger retirement fund is problematic. You retire together.
Would you be ok with it if your wife could have been contributing a lot more but chose to blow it in a different way, while you were saving?
Anonymous wrote:My retirement fund is 4x larger than my DW. Mine is enough to cover for both of us (I think) so we are perfectly okay with smaller wife's fund. Not sure why one person having a bigger retirement fund is problematic. You retire together.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please go see a financial advisor ASAP so they can help you figure this all out.
Shed doesn't need a financial advisor. She needs a marriage counselor or a a divorce lawyer.
+1
OP and her husband aren’t 30. You’re not going to see a financial advisor who is going to be able to correct the fact that OP probably had a couple of decades of saving ahead over her DH. Either get comfortable with the fact that your assets will eventually benefitting him, or divorce.
What if he has a stroke? Even if he had nothing in his name, he wouldn’t be able to get a Medicaid bed due to your situation.
I think these two just got married to save the $1,500 on health insurance, and maybe for tax reasons. Short term thinking, indeed. (Are we noticing a pattern here?) I don’t buy it about consulting with attorneys and financial planners about how this made sense. This whole thing is too harebrained. If you did consult with someone who should know better, you should ask for a refund.