# What financial moves can we make prior to marriage to have a 'you keep what you earn marriage'



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
4) Do not buy a house, it is considered community property in most states, always rent and always pay portion of rent
5) Always use separate bank/financial institutions to deposit any and every form of earning, ask wife to sign assignment of interest form from financial institution
6) File taxes as married filing separately (is this needed? Yes)
7) Regularly sign postnups after marriage (redundant step)
8) Banks/financial institutions in your name should only have month or two of expenses, any and every investment $ to be invested through a gift to your parents or a trust (if you have the $$$$)
9) Periodically sign inter-spousal transfer deeds with clear transmutation clause
10) Any remaining assets to be in non traceable form ex. gold, crypto, buried cash etc. (NOT NEEDED)

Any other tips from members here? Don't want the 'don't marry if you don't trust her'. Its impossible to fully vet someone prior to marriage leave alone predicting their behavior several years later


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

The boys in your family that want to get married are the ones asking you these questions? There’s a few books or podcasts they can watch that may give them pause. No one can ‘foolproof’ a marriage. Eventually, the judge has discretion.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Consult a family law attorney for the state they live in and then maybe move.

Otherwise, get government out of everyone's business when it comes to marriage.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

RebuildingMe said:


> The boys in your family that want to get married are the ones asking you these questions? There’s a few books or podcasts they can watch that may give them pause. No one can ‘foolproof’ a marriage. Eventually, the judge has discretion.


That's the question, how much discretion do judges have? Will they really intervene in financial agreements between spouses, specially if wife is in a reasonable income job with some of her own assets? The topic is coming up in several family discussion, and no boys (who will in 20's soon) have no clue about any of this, so I am trying to advise


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

ConanHub said:


> Consult a family law attorney for the state they live in and then maybe move.
> 
> Otherwise, get government out of everyone's business when it comes to marriage.


I did talk, they can help with pre-nup or post-nup, they are generally reluctant to dispense advice which might impact their future business. 
Getting government out of marriage? Not happening in our lifetime


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
> ...


Really? BURIED CASH and hidden assets?

These people should just not get married. 

Buried cash


----------



## bobsmith (Oct 15, 2012)

I applaud you for being proactive. I think the young ones get sucked into the "we are in love, it's all good" pressures. You are on the right track. I always kept finances separate. I super love how the government likes to play games with the "married but filing separate", but I think it is still wise and cleaner. 

Best thing you can do is warn, and use personal examples. I'm sure you know plenty that are divorced and they ALL thought it would "work". Reality is lifelong marriage is like a pink unicorn. 

People flip a switch in divorce. I personally feel having a SAHW is a recipe for a major financial hit in the divorce. I agree with work, and real work! I see a bunch of wives that earn minimum wage in a pud job, and drive a BMW.  Yeah, she will be keeping it too!


----------



## bobert (Nov 22, 2018)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
> ...


I highly doubt 20 year olds are coming to you and asking you these questions. It's more likely that you don't believe in marriage and want to "warn" them. 

There is a difference between having a pre or postnup (which I have, so it's not like I'm against them) and burying money. Which btw, isn't allowed in a divorce. Not very wise advice, is it?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

I realize that the family courts are very, very unfair to men, but I gotta say, everything on your list would be a MAJOR red flag to NOT marry one of those men. I mean, I'm all for insurance and being protective. Pre-nup, post-nup, these are normal things, but that list is pretty over the top. I mean, do not buy a house? use separate banks? keep hidden cash?

If this is the opinion that these men have of women, then they should not marry. Yikes.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I realize that the family courts are very, very unfair to men, but I gotta say, everything on your list would be a MAJOR red flag to NOT marry one of those men. I mean, I'm all for insurance and being protective. Pre-nup, post-nup, these are normal things, but that list is pretty over the top. I mean, do not buy a house? use separate banks? keep hidden cash?
> 
> If this is the opinion that these men have of women, then they should not marry. Yikes.


Yup.


----------



## Rob_1 (Sep 8, 2017)

Don't buy a house, rent. Hah...that got to be the most stupid financial consideration I'd ever heard. 
A house is on average an appreciating asset. When divorce comes that asset is split 50/50 if you buy with the standard both parties in the marriage on the mortgage and the deed. 

If you rent for the rest of your life, you won't have a dime to show for at the end.
This OP reeks of "Red Pill".


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Unless a person is engaged and specifically asking questions such as you have described why are you even saying this stuff? You said they are still in their teens so doubtful it's going to come up in the near future.
If a person asked me about keeping finances separate after marriage it would show me they haven't a clue about what marriage means and are in no way ready to marry.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

I get what you are saying about wanting a wife that also earns money, but that doesn't make sense with not buying a house. You both would be co tributing to expenses. In the case of divorce, you both get a cut of the equity. If you rent, you get nothing.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)


Non-community property states are equitable distribution states. In those states, the judge can choose what % each spouse gets. They will often give the lower earning spouse more than 50% because the idea is that the higher earning spouse can make up the difference more quickly. This is especially true is a woman is a stay-at-home-mom.



pk1at said:


> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her


This is helpful. But assets and debts are still split.



pk1at said:


> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney


Can work if written well and if the judge doesn't see a hole in it.



pk1at said:


> 4) Do not buy a house, it is considered community property in most states, always rent and always pay portion of rent


Yea, paying rent which is usually higher than a mortgage payment makes a lot of sense... NOT! At least with a house, it can be sold and there is equity.

How about each, husband & wife, put down equal amount in down payment and then make payments out of community income.




pk1at said:


> 5) Always use separate bank/financial institutions to deposit any and every form of earning, ask wife to sign assignment of interest form from financial institution





pk1at said:


> 6) File taxes as married filing separately (is this needed?)


Filing taxes as married filing separate is a much higher rate than filing married (joint). It's a higher tax rate than filing as single. So, both spouses would pay higher tax rates.

So far you are suggesting not to buy a home which is not only the largest invest most people have and to pay a very high rate of income tax.



pk1at said:


> 7) Regularly sign postnups after marriage


What's purpose of being married?



pk1at said:


> 8) Banks/financial institutions in your name should only have month or two of expenses, any and every investment $ to be invested through a gift to your parents or a trust (if you have the $$$$)
> 
> 9) Any remaining assets to be in non traceable form ex. gold, crypto, buried cash etc. (assuming its legal in your state to hide assets)
> 
> Any other tips from members here? Don't want the 'don't marry if you don't trust her'. Its impossible to fully vet someone prior to marriage leave alone predicting their behavior several years later


Yea, the tip is if someone is this paranoid, they should not get married.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
> ...


Go with your first instinct. Advise them to not get married. If they want good advise, tell them to wait until they're established in their purpose. Say 32, with their own home and retirement assets. By then, they will have the resources, experience, and maturity to not need advice. If at that time they want a family, they're in the best position to establish one.

As far as your list. Pre-nups are good. But the rest is a recipe for a very litigious and expensive divorce. Any hint of hidden assets, and a divorce lawyer worth his hourly will instantly bring in forensic accountants. Judges aren't too happy with hidden assets either.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

If you are going into a marriage with an adversarial attitude and not like it is a team sport, that is definitely going to increase the chances that a divorce is going to happen.

If you (they) are going to insist that she make her own money, they should be prepared to cook their own meals and wash their own laundry. If they have kids, then they need to be prepared to take the kids to (at least) half of all of the appointments and stay home (at least) half the time when the kids are sick.

Statistics say that most men don't pull their weight when it comes to home chores and childcare and expecting women to pull their weight outside of the house without pulling their own inside the house is hypocritical.


----------



## Zedd (Jul 27, 2021)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
> ...


if separating finances is that important to you, just don't get married, and draw up living wills/trusts to handle your financial future. Marriage, at it's core, is really only about the transfer of property rights. You can do that with a lawyer and set up associated medical rights as well.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

So these guys are still teens? Have they specifically asked how they can keep their finances separate or was that your own opinion? 
Are they actually engaged? 

If anyone in my family asked the things you have mentioned I would talk to them about what marriage actually is about and suggest that they wait several more years to grow up enough. 

Hopefully any wise lady would not go near them if that is their attitudes and not just yours.


----------



## Diceplayer (Oct 12, 2019)

Marriage is the bonding of two people. The two become one. Anyone who is looking at keeping finances separate to this extent is looking at divorce more than marriage and they should not get married in the first place. Just stay single and while the married couples are having sex, you can sit around and count your money.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying, but I researched more about prenups/post nups and community property and there is a lot men can do if they want this type of arrangement
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US)
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her
> 3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney
> ...


I think you should avoid giving these boys advice. Many of the items on your list are just plain bad advice and all smack of a tone that says you don't care for marriage. Have you ever been married, and divorced? Was it an ugly divorce?

Anyone that thinks this list is a good idea is better off not getting married. The whole list says, "I know you are going to **** me over some day."


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I can't get over the burying cash advice. 

No one in their right mind buries cash in the ground to keep it hidden from their spouse.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Livvie said:


> I can't get over the burying cash advice.
> 
> *No one in their right mind buries cash in the ground to keep it hidden from their spouse.*


Exactly, OP's mind is anything but right.


----------



## theloveofmylife (Jan 5, 2021)

bobsmith said:


> I personally feel having a SAHW is a recipe for a major financial hit in the divorce. I agree with work, and real work! I see a bunch of wives that earn minimum wage in a pud job, and drive a BMW. Yeah, she will be keeping it too!


A stay at home wife does work. Her work is just unpaid and often unappreciated. That's why some states decide that the work she's done over the years counts. It balances any unappreciative man who would leave a SAHM high and dry after she gave up her best years to take care of him and their kids.

and yeah, op, don't get married.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

Good luck! Divorce attorneys know all the tricks. I think aside from having a really detailed prenup or a fake identify and offshore accounts in some banana republic, your assets are still at risk. That's why divorce attorneys make so much!


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

theloveofmylife said:


> A stay at home wife does work. Her work is just unpaid and often unappreciated. That's why some states decide that the work she's done over the years counts. It balances any unappreciative man who would leave a SAHM high and dry after she gave up her best years to take care of him and their kids.
> 
> and yeah, op, don't get married.


I agree. In the past I corrected my wife when she said didn't work. She just didn't bring home a paycheck, but she most certainly worked. She did go back to a paying career once the kids were old enough. She has sometimes expressed feeling guilty about how little money she makes in comparison to me, but I always reminder her that in my eyes we are equal partners and I just happen to be the one that brings in the money. She appreciates the comfort and benefits of my paycheck, but she is not all about the money. In fact she has always made me think twice before accepting a higher position even when it meant a lot more compensation. She places a high value on our time together. I am comfortable with the fact that if we divorced she would be getting a large chunk of my earnings, because in my mind she earned it. I'm also highly confident that divorce isn't anywhere in our future. 

If you aren't comfortable thinking at least a little along these ^^^^ lines you may want to reconsider getting married in the first place.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm also highly confident that divorce isn't anywhere in our future.


I hope you are right on that and from what you have written in the past, you probably are. Its just when someone blindsides you like my ex did after 20 years together it hurts as I used to say the exact same thing. I NEVER thought divorce was in our future.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Diceplayer said:


> Marriage is the bonding of two people. The two become one. Anyone who is looking at keeping finances separate to this extent is looking at divorce more than marriage and they should not get married in the first place. Just stay single and while the married couples are having sex, you can sit around and count your money.


Love it 😂


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> I hope you are right on that and from what you have written in the past, you probably are. Its just when someone blindsides you like my ex did after 20 years together it hurts as I used to say the exact same thing. I NEVER thought divorce was in our future.


I was the same after a 23 year marriage followed by a sudden and very traumatic ending, but it didn't stop me from wanting to get married again. Plus we didn't want a prenup and we have a joint account. Everything is ours. Nothing is his or mine.

If I felt I had to try and hold onto money and assets I wouldn't marry. To me that's not what marriage is about.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> I hope you are right on that and from what you have written in the past, you probably are. Its just when someone blindsides you like my ex did after 20 years together it hurts as I used to say the exact same thing. I NEVER thought divorce was in our future.


I'm smart enough and realistic enough to know you never say never. That plays into why I don't think we will, because it keeps me from taking my marriage and my wife for granted.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm smart enough and realistic enough to know you never say never. That plays into why I don't think we will, because it keeps me from taking my marriage and my wife for granted.


I wish my ex would have felt the same way especially since she bailed over money.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I was the same after a 23 year marriage followed by a sudden and very traumatic ending, but it didn't stop me from wanting to get married again. Plus we didn't want a prenup and we have a joint account. Everything is ours. Nothing is his or mine.
> 
> If I felt I had to try and hold onto money and assets I wouldn't marry. To me that's not what marriage is about.


And I just said this same thing to BigDaddy, I wish my ex would have felt the same way especially since she bailed over money.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

theloveofmylife said:


> A stay at home wife does work. Her work is just unpaid and often unappreciated. That's why some states decide that the work she's done over the years counts. It balances any unappreciative man who would leave a SAHM high and dry after she gave up her best years to take care of him and their kids.
> 
> and yeah, op, don't get married.


SAHM work is implied that they are also earning the salary the husband brings home. The work at the house and raising of the children is required while the husband focuses on work outside of the home. The income from the husband's job is earned by both parties. The law should balance out the assets and money so that a SAHM cannot be left high and dry. I'm in complete agreement. 

Where problems arise is when both the husband and the wife work and the court system still favors the woman. I hope sometime in the next few decades this changes so that both parties can leave a marriage under fair circumstances.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

The 'bury your cash advice' comes from laws in some states. There is no legal requirement to disclose your assets to your spouse during marriage and in divorce assets to be split have to be self disclosed. Therefore is it legal to not disclose assets not known to your spouse? I think the answer is yes, although I need to research more here


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> The 'bury your cash advice' comes from laws in some states. There is no legal requirement to disclose your assets to your spouse during marriage and in divorce assets to be split have to be self disclosed. Therefore is it legal to not disclose assets not known to your spouse? I think the answer is yes, although I need to research more here


What do you see as the reason to get married?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> The 'bury your cash advice' comes from laws in some states. There is no legal requirement to disclose your assets to your spouse during marriage and in divorce assets to be split have to be self disclosed. Therefore is it legal to not disclose assets not known to your spouse? I think the answer is yes, although I need to research more here


I hope that anyone with this attitude you have is at least honest enough to tell their spouse that they intend to lie, cheat, and steal from the marital finances. Your 'advice' is horrible.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Diceplayer said:


> Just stay single and while the married couples are having sex, you can sit around and count your money.


Married people have sex??


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

RebuildingMe said:


> Married people have sex??


Not according to everything you read on marriage forums


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diceplayer said:


> Just stay single and while the married couples are having sex, you can sit around and count your money.


Or do what I do, stay single, have sex and count your money after she leaves.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> What do you see as the reason to get married?


Plenty of reasons, for family, for religion, for children etc. what I don't want is the government dictating me (in this case the boys) to pay a portion of hard earned money if things don't work out


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

pk1at said:


> what I don't want is the government dictating me (in this case the boys) to pay a portion of hard earned money if things don't work out


If the wife stayed home to raise the kids & did other things to advance the husband's careers by freeing them up from household responsibilities, do you not value that as a contribution to the home & family? Especially if her career derailed by those choices, you just think the breadwinner gets to reap all the rewards while punishing the person who chose to help the breadwinner advance?


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

EleGirl said:


> I hope that anyone with this attitude you have is at least honest enough to tell their spouse that they intend to lie, cheat, and steal from the marital finances. Your 'advice' is horrible.


LoL, "marital finances!!" that's one big statement, who on earth decided marriage was the union of two paychecks??


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

pk1at said:


> LoL, "marital finances!!" that's one big statement, who on earth decided marriage was the union of two paychecks??


In all seriousness, I guess this could become another thread like where the one recently posted asking if sex is implied as part of a marriage\relationship.

Are shared finances also implied?

Interesting topics. At this rate, the new normal for marriages could result in a whole lot of legal documents prior to saying "I do".


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> What do you see as the reason to get married?


No good ones


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Or do what I do, stay single, have sex and count your money after she leaves.


Brilliant.

ok lady, about last night. I really had a good time. Looks like you did too from what I can tell.

now, I need to bid you goodbye. I prefer to be alone while I count my money.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> In all seriousness, I guess this could become another thread like where the one recently posted asking if sex is implied as part of a marriage\relationship.
> 
> Are shared finances also implied?
> 
> Interesting topics. At this rate, the new normal for marriages could result in a whole lot of legal documents prior to saying "I do".


That's not a bad idea really


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Brilliant.
> 
> ok lady, about last night. I really had a good time. Looks like you did too from what I can tell.
> 
> now, I need to bid you goodbye. I prefer to be alone while I count my money.


Pretty much sums up the mornings except for that last sentence. If they know you have money they always want to hang around. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> I hope that anyone with this attitude you have is at least honest enough to tell their spouse that they intend to lie, cheat, and steal from the marital finances. Your 'advice' is horrible.


EleGirl, I do agree mostly with your sentiment.


typically, I agree with courts and everything should be split evenly (especially when it comes to SAHM), but I think the laws need to change a bit. At least in my state they still heavily favor the wife in a divorce. It requires the husband to tread extremely carefully so as not to get raked over the coals. Things are definitely not split up evenly here.

But I don’t blame women for these laws. I blame the lawmakers.

I don’t agree with all of OP’s suggestions, but I do think people need to protect themselves going into marriage. You never know when one Of the spouses is going to snap. It’d be nice to trust that person for the rest of your life, but unfortunately, that’s not how our world works all the time.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Plenty of reasons, for family, for religion, for children etc. what I don't want is the government dictating me (in this case the boys) to pay a portion of hard earned money if things don't work out


Then don't get married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> In all seriousness, I guess this could become another thread like where the one recently posted asking if sex is implied as part of a marriage\relationship.
> 
> Are shared finances also implied?
> 
> Interesting topics. At this rate, the new normal for marriages could result in a whole lot of legal documents prior to saying "I do".


I see shared finances as vital in a marriage. If someone wants to put money and fear of loosing it before their spouse then they shouldn't be getting married.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

Can you hide assets during a divorce?

Lying about assets during divorce discovery is perjury.



> If you lie during discovery or your deposition in order to hide assets, you've committed perjury (a punishable crime). If your lies are discovered by your spouse, your spouse's attorney, or a judge, you may face severe sanctions (monetary fines) or a perjury charge.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I see shared finances as vital in a marriage. If someone wants to put money and fear of loosing it before their spouse then they shouldn't be getting married.


In spirit, I agree with you Diana.

I wish things worked out that way.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LATERILUS79 said:


> EleGirl, I do agree mostly with your sentiment.
> 
> 
> typically, I agree with courts and everything should be split evenly (especially when it comes to SAHM), but I think the laws need to change a bit. At least in my state they still heavily favor the wife in a divorce. It requires the husband to tread extremely carefully so as not to get raked over the coals. Things are definitely not split up evenly here.
> ...


Marriage isn't about hiding money and assets and having secret accounts. That's deceptive.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Plenty of reasons, for family, for religion, for children etc. what I don't want is the government dictating me (in this case the boys) to pay a portion of hard earned money if things don't work out


Then hire a housekeeper/cook and use professional services for the other things. Why marry if you don’t love or trust or respect the woman at all? I would certainly hope no woman would ever have a child with someone who thinks this way. What if the child is handicapped? I suppose the woman is solely responsible and has to work AND figure out how to care for the child? If this is how they think, they should stay single. No child deserves that kind of life.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Marriage isn't about hiding money and assets and having secret accounts. That's deceptive.


Oh, don’t get me wrong.

I don’t believe in hiding assets or money. No secrets. Im all on board with what you are saying.

I’m saying to protect what you have in a legal manner.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I see shared finances as vital in a marriage. If you want to put money and fear of loosing it before your spouse then you shouldn't be getting married.


I actually agree with you. The chances of losing your money to a vindictive spouse and an unfair court during a divorce is exactly the reason you shouldn't get married.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Hiner112 said:


> Can you hide assets during a divorce?
> 
> Lying about assets during divorce discovery is perjury.


Only if they find out. 🤫


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I actually agree with you. The chances of losing your money to a vindictive spouse and an unfair court during a divorce is exactly the reason you shouldn't get married.


And it goes both ways, right? If a woman makes a lot of money she would be really unwise to tether herself to someone. I’m in the camp that unless you’re planning children there’s no reason to get married.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> And it goes both ways, right? If a woman makes a lot of money she would be really unwise to tether herself to someone. I’m in the camp that unless you’re planning children there’s no reason to get married.


It goes both ways but you know as well as I do that it's usually the man that gets raked over the coals with the current legal system.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Hiner112 said:


> Can you hide assets during a divorce?
> 
> Lying about assets during divorce discovery is perjury.


Article talks only about assets disclosed during discovery, i.e. assets which can be discovered by spouse. What about assets which are completely hidden from spouse since day 1? The discovery process in many states simply involves mutual agreement on assets. The question is 'can the government force you to declare assets during divorce' ? I still think the answer is no


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> And it goes both ways, right? If a woman makes a lot of money she would be really unwise to tether herself to someone. I’m in the camp that unless you’re planning children there’s no reason to get married.


That is a pretty good point. The reasons for getting married do go down if kids aren't being considered.

There are other practical reason though too. Taxes for one. There is a tax benefit to being married. Also, there are a lot of rights that come along with being a spouse that would have to be handled through other legal documents. 

Maybe I'm just foolishly romantic, but I think the primary reason for marriage is it is the ultimate commitment to your partner.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

pk1at said:


> Article talks only about assets disclosed during discovery, i.e. assets which can be discovered by spouse. What about assets which are completely hidden from spouse since day 1? The discovery process in many states simply involves mutual agreement on assets. The question is 'can the government force you to declare assets during divorce' ? I still think the answer is no


Is it worth risking jail time?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Article talks only about assets disclosed during discovery, i.e. assets which can be discovered by spouse. What about assets which are completely hidden from spouse since day 1? The discovery process in many states simply involves mutual agreement on assets. The question is 'can the government force you to declare assets during divorce' ? I still think the answer is no


It is sad that you are talking about making plans to lie to you spouse even before they are your spouse. This is what you plan on teaching these boys in your family, lie to your spouse? Might as well tell them to lie about their side piece too.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> That's not a bad idea really


Well, when you see the "FloridaGuy Marriage Contract" available, you'll know where it originated!


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I see shared finances as vital in a marriage. If someone wants to put money and fear of loosing it before their spouse then they shouldn't be getting married.


You are entitled to your view on marriage, I am trying to provide options to 18-20 yr old boys who don't want to share finances after marriage


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I see shared finances as vital in a marriage. If someone wants to put money and fear of loosing it before their spouse then they shouldn't be getting married.


Right...but is it "implied" like sex is being asked about in the other thread?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> It goes both ways but you know as well as I do that it's usually the man that gets raked over the coals with the current legal system.


Sadly, even when the woman is the one who cheats the man still ends up paying. Plus the courts favor women in child custody, even to the detriment of the children. It’s very unfair right now. I just want it to be fair and not favor either sex, look at the facts and make decisions based on the circumstances of the case.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Hiner112 said:


> Is it worth risking jail time?


Definitely not, that's why I am exploring the option, 'is it really against the law or is this something put out by the government to make their job easier'?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Right...but is it "implied" like sex is being asked about in the other thread?


Of course sex is conditional but the money is a must! Didn't you know that?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sadly, even when the woman is the one who cheats the man still ends up paying. Plus the courts favor women in child custody, even to the detriment of the children. It’s very unfair right now. I just want it to be fair and not favor either sex, look at the facts and make decisions based on the circumstances of the case.


I am a prime example of the messed up court system


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Right...but is it "implied" like sex is being asked about in the other thread?


There’s a lot of negatives to marriage for men and women. The main benefit of marriage goes to the children, as it should.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I am a prime example of the messed up court system


I know and I’m really sorry. She is the worst, I hope an ant bites her in between her toes. 👿


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> There’s a lot of negatives to marriage for men and women. The main benefit of marriage goes to the children, as it should.


And even that is questionable


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> There’s a lot of negatives to marriage for men and women. The main benefit of marriage goes to the children, as it should.


Unless there aren't any....children that is not benefits.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

pk1at said:


> Definitely not, that's why I am exploring the option, 'is it really against the law or is this something put out by the government to make their job easier'?


If the divorce is as adversarial as you seem to be proposing, then you will almost certainly be asked in court if the listed assets on the divorce document are accurate. If you lie, then I don't see how that would _not_ have any consequences. It is lying in court or on legal documents.

The "suppose no one knows about the money, then is it illegal not to declare it?" is akin to asking "if I steal money and no one catches me, am I still a thief?".


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Unless there aren't any....children that is not benefits.


If there are no children I honestly don’t see the point in marrying. But for the OP, kids would be a disaster. They would suffer and grow up with a really twisted view of relationships between men and women. Being married is hard enough when you love, respect and genuinely LIKE your spouse as a person. These adversarial, competitive marriages I just don’t get.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

Hiner112 said:


> If the divorce is as adversarial as you seem to be proposing, then you will almost certainly be asked in court if the listed assets on the divorce document are accurate. If you lie, then I don't see how that would _not_ have any consequences. It is lying in court or on legal documents.
> 
> The "suppose no one knows about the money, then is it illegal not to declare it?" is akin to asking "if I steal money and no one catches me, am I still a thief?".


Agreed but my ex lied on those very docs, I stated it in court and absolutely nothing happened.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sadly, even when the woman is the one who cheats the man still ends up paying. Plus the courts favor women in child custody, even to the detriment of the children. It’s very unfair right now. I just want it to be fair and not favor either sex, look at the facts and make decisions based on the circumstances of the case.


Even when the courts do get “it right”, it can still cost a man 137k in legal fees. Ask me how I know.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> And even that is questionable


Depends largely on the character of the people involved. 🥺 Some people are really good liars.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Oh, don’t get me wrong.
> 
> I don’t believe in hiding assets or money. No secrets. Im all on board with what you are saying.
> 
> I’m saying to protect what you have in a legal manner.


Like with a prenup?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Depends largely on the character of the people involved. 🥺 Some people are really good liars.


No, what I meant was if two people have a child; support that child, raise the child together, etc. what does getting marriage change about that?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> I actually agree with you. The chances of losing your money to a vindictive spouse and an unfair court during a divorce is exactly the reason you shouldn't get married.


Everything in life is a risk. If we didn't take risks we wouldn't have much of a life.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Everything in life is a risk. If we didn't take risks we wouldn't have much of a life.


We wouldn't have much in life if we don't learn "risk assessment". Some risks are to great compared to the return you get.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> No, what I meant was if two people have a child; support that child, raise the child together, etc. what does getting marriage change about that?


It’s kind of off topic. For me, it was about legal rights for property, responsibility for the child, and medical decisions. But it was mostly about forming a “family,” binding ourselves together with vows (not government stuff, but promises to each other) that we agreed we would be a family and work together to provide a strong, safe place for our son. We had a civil marriage (in Italy) not a church marriage, because for us the whole purpose was to be a family. We’re a team, doing this together, shared goals and values.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s kind of off topic. For me, it was about legal rights for property, responsibility for the child, and medical decisions. But it was mostly about forming a “family,” binding ourselves together with vows (not government stuff, but promises to each other) that we agreed we would be a family and work together to provide a strong, safe place for our son. We had a civil marriage (in Italy) not a church marriage, because for us the whole purpose was to be a family. We’re a team, doing this together, shared goals and values.


I get what you are saying but for me I wouldn't need a ceremony or piece of paper as proof or to simply be a team with someone.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I get what you are saying but for me I wouldn't need a ceremony or piece of paper as proof or to simply be a team with someone.


That’s valid and you could do that. We could also have just gone to the JP. (We actually did, Texas doesn’t recognize marriages from Italy) It was important to us to have the ceremony. Plus it was fun. If you go to Venice, I recommend you wear a tux or wedding dress because everyone is SO NICE. We were on TV! But it was important to us to be official. I took his name, and we share everything. It’s just what worked for us. Plus should something happen to one of us it simplifies inheritance, life insurance and custody.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> That’s valid and you could do that. We could also have just gone to the JP. (We actually did, Texas doesn’t recognize marriages from Italy) It was important to us to have the ceremony. Plus it was fun. If you go to Venice, I recommend you wear a tux or wedding dress because everyone is SO NICE. We were on TV! But it was important to us to be official. I took his name, and we share everything. It’s just what worked for us.


Very nice!


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Like with a prenup?


yes


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Hiner112 said:


> If the divorce is as adversarial as you seem to be proposing, then you will almost certainly be asked in court if the listed assets on the divorce document are accurate. If you lie, then I don't see how that would _not_ have any consequences. It is lying in court or on legal documents.
> 
> The "suppose no one knows about the money, then is it illegal not to declare it?" is akin to asking "if I steal money and no one catches me, am I still a thief?".


Big difference between a civil dispute (divorce) vs criminal tax evasion. Once a resolution is reached in civil dispute, law does not care about assets hidden. Its up to the other spouse to legally discover the asset and prove she/he is entitled to it.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Everything in life is a risk. If we didn't take risks we wouldn't have much of a life.


Divorce rate in some states is around 60%, its not a risk its a likely outcome to be prepared for. Let's not get too emotional here, just like purchasing 'life/health insurance' we need options to get married without having to lose money during the likely outcome of divorce


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is sad that you are talking about making plans to lie to you spouse even before they are your spouse. This is what you plan on teaching these boys in your family, lie to your spouse? Might as well tell them to lie about their side piece too.


Who is talking about lying? Its more like splitting 'his money'/ 'her money' and each gets to spend/invest that amount privately. Wife can choose to splurge on vacation, but husband cannot bury in 'backyard'?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> We wouldn't have much in life if we don't learn "risk assessment". Some risks are to great compared to the return you get.


It depends what your priorities are maybe? Marriage and family are very important to me and holding into money isn't. I don't worry about money and what may or may not happen.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Who is talking about lying? Its more like splitting 'his money'/ 'her money' and each gets to spend/invest that amount privately. Wife can choose to splurge on vacation, but husband cannot bury in 'backyard'?


That's not what marriage is about. If you can't even share finances then you clearly dont love your spouse and have no real committment to them.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> That's not what marriage is about. If you can't even share finances then you clearly dont love your spouse and have no real committment to them.


One minute you say holding on to money doesn't matter to you, then the next you say that not sharing finances mean someone clearly doesn't love their spouse. Which one is it?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> One minute you say holding on to money doesn't matter to you, then the next you say that not sharing finances mean someone clearly doesn't love their spouse. Which one is it?


They are the same thing. Marriage for me is sharing everything including money, earnings, assets, inheritances etc etc. I am not worried about keeping money to myself, it's a shared thing.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> They are the same thing. Marriage for me is sharing everything including money, earnings, assets, inheritances etc etc. I am not worried about keeping money to myself, it's a shared thing.


I understand what you mean now


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> That's not what marriage is about. If you can't even share finances then you clearly dont love your spouse and have no real committment to them.


I thought it was about taking care of each other without worrying about what the other person earned, didn't know it involved full gun-point disclosure of earnings, investments and assets


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

Keep your prior investments separates from the investments you start to make once you marry.

But use the income from the investments jointly.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> I thought it was about taking care of each other without worrying about what the other person earned, didn't know it involved full gun-point disclosure of earnings, investments and assets


If you're hiding money because you don't want her to "steal" it from you in a divorce (which you seem to believe is inevitable), and you keep all finances separate and don't combine any part of your life, then how is that "taking care of each other"?


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Advice from some attorney forums is that a good post-nup is all that is required to retain 100% of what you earn and gain during marriage, specially when both spouses earn above west coast 'living wage' of $150K/yr. Found a good example on-line




__





Loading…






divorcelawyerofnj.com


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Divorce rate in some states is around 60%, its not a risk its a likely outcome to be prepared for. Let's not get too emotional here, just like purchasing 'life/health insurance' we need options to get married without having to lose money during the likely outcome of divorce


You need those options, I dont. Its not what marriage is to me. BTW the divorce rate is 40% here I believe.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> You need those options, I dont. Its not what marriage is to me. BTW the divorce rate is 40% here I believe.


If you don't need those options, can you please stop responding? I created the thread to hear about options, not get lectured on what constitutes a 'good marriage'


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Divorce rate in some states is around 60%, its not a risk its a likely outcome to be prepared for. Let's not get too emotional here, just like purchasing 'life/health insurance' we need options to get married without having to lose money during the likely outcome of divorce


Most people who are divorcing are not one-timers. It is the repeat marriages that drive up this number.
The majority of people who marry for the first time stay married, fortunately.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> I thought it was about taking care of each other without worrying about what the other person earned, didn't know it involved full gun-point disclosure of earnings, investments and assets


Being possessive and clingy about money isn't caring for each other. I have no reason to hide anything from Mr D nor he me. You are putting money above the marriage. It will almost inevitably end in divorce if you go into it with that attitude. If you have to hide anything you don't have a solid foundation for a marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> If you don't need those options, can you please stop responding? I created the thread to hear about options, not get lectured on what constitutes a 'good marriage'


So you dont want anyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Being possessive and clingy about money isn't caring for each other. I have no reason to hide anything from Mr D nor he me. You are putting money above the marriage. It will almost inevitably end in divorce if you go into it with that attitude. If you have to hide anything you don't have a solid foundation for a marriage.


You have to be practical in all matters.
You can keep your prior marriage investments separate and use the income they generate jointly. 
We live in a fallen world and not protecting yourself it pretty foolish.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> So you dont want anyone who disagrees with you.


Its just off-topic, looking for options here for those who want to marry but not share finances, according to you that seems to be a great sin, its your opinion and I won't argue with it.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

LATERILUS79 said:


> I get what you are saying about wanting a wife that also earns money, but that doesn't make sense with not buying a house. You both would be co tributing to expenses. In the case of divorce, you both get a cut of the equity. If you rent, you get nothing.


It won't be a 50-50 split if the wife has blown it all off during the marriage. She will get 100% of the house as a reward for spending it all


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)




----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

jonty30 said:


> You have to be practical in all matters.
> You can keep your prior marriage investments separate and use the income they generate jointly.
> We live in a fallen world and not protecting yourself it pretty foolish.


Marriage for me is the sharing of everything no matter what. Nothing held back.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> It won't be a 50-50 split if the wife has blown it all off during the marriage. She will get 100% of the house as a reward for spending it all


What if the man has blown everything?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

The couple I know with an open marriage have separate finances. They split up the bills and have specific ones that they each pay, they have no joint money. The cost of the children falls primarily on the wife, of course. They did buy a house together, that is the only thing that’s combined. I’d have to ask how they divided it.

They are also the couple who says “divorce is not an option.” So I don’t know if that helps, OP, they’re not planning to divorce. I have no idea if the man is hiding money from his wife, I suppose he could be.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Marriage for me is the sharing of everything no matter what. Nothing held back.


Diana, I have to agree with you - but hypothetically speaking, what if we removed the government from marriage? I’m curious on your thoughts here.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Marriage for me is the sharing of everything no matter what. Nothing held back.


I agree with you that, if you can find somebody with your values and are prepared to be married with you until you die, that's the way it should be.

But many trusting people ended up losing millions thinking they had a marriage for life.

If a spouse is the kind of spouse they should be, they shouldn't have a problem keeping your prior-marriage investments separate if you are sharing the income from them.

I would be very wary of my spouse started demanding that her name be on my prior marriage investments, if I was already sharing it's income fully.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Who is talking about lying? Its more like splitting 'his money'/ 'her money' and each gets to spend/invest that amount privately. Wife can choose to splurge on vacation, but husband cannot bury in 'backyard'?


Hiding assets is the same thing as lying about assets. I think you are sending a very bad message to these boys that they should not be fully transparent with a spouse.

I think there can be an argument made for a prenup in the case of two well established adults that have significant assets. As for the boys in your family getting married. It sounds like they are around 20 and I assume nothing substantial in assets. In those cases I think they are much better off in an us against the world arrangement, not a me and you arrangement. _(ETA: probably better stated as a mine and yours arrangement) _It has been my personal experience that when you are starting off with nothing or very little life is a lot easier if you are a combined team, not adversaries from day one.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Diana, I have to agree with you - but hypothetically speaking, what if we removed the government from marriage? I’m curious on your thoughts here.


I guess my views on marriage are pretty deep so removing the govt wouldn't change that.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Hiding assets is the same thing as lying about assets. I think you are sending a very bad message to these boys that they should not be fully transparent with a spouse.
> 
> I think there can be an argument made for a prenup in the case of two well established adults that have significant assets. As for the boys in your family getting married. It sounds like they are around 20 and I assume nothing substantial in assets. In those cases I think they are much better off in an us against the world arrangement, not a me and you arrangement. _(ETA: probably better stated as a mine and yours arrangement) _It has been my personal experience that when you are starting off with nothing or very little life is a lot easier if you are a combined team, not adversaries from day one.


I am think he said they were not yet 20, so teenagers probably not even thinking about getting married yet.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I guess my views on marriage are pretty deep so removing the govt wouldn't change that.


Yeah, we have the legal considerations around property and medical decisions, but even formalizing our marriage didn’t change how we viewed it.

There’s also a huge, wide, massive difference between “separate accounts” and “hide my money and don’t commit to anything financially with her (basically live entirely separate lives) so she can’t steal it from me when we divorce.” Those are entirely different attitudes. If you’re burying cash in a coffee can in the back yard like you’re Walter White because you don’t want some woman to take your stuff, marriage is NOT for you. 😉😂


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yeah, we have the legal considerations around property and medical decisions, but even formalizing our marriage didn’t change how we viewed it.
> 
> There’s also a huge, wide, massive difference between “separate accounts” and “hide my money and don’t commit to anything financially with her (basically live entirely separate lives) so she can’t steal it from me when we divorce.” Those are entirely different attitudes. If you’re burying cash in a coffee can in the back yard like you’re Walter White because you don’t want some woman to take your stuff, marriage is NOT for you. 😉😂


I agree but what you are basically saying is that if you DO want some woman to take your stuff, marriage is for you. 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I agree but what you are basically saying is that if you DO want some woman to take your stuff, marriage is for you. 🤣🤣🤣


Oh stop it, you know that’s not what I’m saying. 😂😂😉


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I guess my views on marriage are pretty deep so removing the govt wouldn't change that.


Agreed!!!!

I appreciate your convictions. you have integrity.

I’m used to people saying what you say - but the moment that the government is removed, all of a sudden, their minds change once the government protections are removed.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I guess my views on marriage are pretty deep so removing the govt wouldn't change that.


Most of us have your view on marriage, but we live in a world where they end up marrying people who don't have that view.
There is just no guarantee on the other person.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> LoL, "marital finances!!" that's one big statement, who on earth decided marriage was the union of two paychecks??


Marriage has always been about merging finances and operating as one legal/financial entity.

Of course, the laws used to favor the man as a woman's assets and income were legally considered the property of her husband, not hers. A man could divorce his wife, or kick her out of the home, and keep all of her assets. Women could not work to support themselves and their children and their husband was not required to support her either if he kicked her out and/or divorced her.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> It goes both ways but you know as well as I do that it's usually the man that gets raked over the coals with the current legal system.


What's "funny" about what you say here is that of the women I know who divorced, only one got any alimony. And every one of them had a job and raised children. When I divorced I got nothing. He was able to walk off with his MD and no debt for that MD cause I paid for it.

Today, 50% of women earn as much or more than their husband. There would be no alimony going to a woman in these cases.

A lot of states, to include California, now allow for the idea in divorce that the lower earning spouse (usually the woman who is a SAHM) has a set amount of time to get alimony but has to become self-supporting. If she doesn't alimony stops.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> You are entitled to your view on marriage, I am trying to provide options to 18-20 yr old boys who don't want to share finances after marriage


Then tell them not to marry.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Agreed but my ex lied on those very docs, I stated it in court and absolutely nothing happened.


Yea, my ex did that too. I however had made copies of everything, to include the records of the accounts taht he thought were secret. I had proof of him moving my money (earned from my job) to an account in his mother's name. Also had records of him making payments on his mother's and his father's houses. Boy, was he pissed when it showed them in court.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage has always been about merging finances and operating as one legal/financial entity.
> 
> Of course, the laws used to favor the man as a woman's assets and income were legally considered the property of her husband, not hers. A man could divorce his wife, or kick her out of the home, and keep all of her assets. Women could not work to support themselves and their children and their husband was not required to support her either if he kicked her out and/or divorced her.


This was the case until around 50 years ago. Women have only had the practical ability to support themselves for a short time, if you consider history as a whole. Marriage for most of time was bad for women and only benefited men.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

LATERILUS79 said:


> EleGirl, I do agree mostly with your sentiment.
> 
> typically, I agree with courts and everything should be split evenly (especially when it comes to SAHM), but I think the laws need to change a bit. At least in my state they still heavily favor the wife in a divorce. It requires the husband to tread extremely carefully so as not to get raked over the coals. Things are definitely not split up evenly here.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that the laws need to change. The laws we have now were created to correct problems that existed when women could not work to support themselves and their children and all assets legally belonged only to the man. Times have changed and the laws need to catch up. Long term or permanent alimony should be very rare now. I can see rehabilitative alimony for a SAHM or a woman who can't earn enough to support herself. But if she does not do the work get the training to be self-supporting in a reasonable about of time, then the alimony should change.

Our society is changing so fast that it's hard for the laws to keep up with the changes.

But I still believe that honesty is very important.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

EleGirl said:


> What "funny" about what you say here is that of the women I know who divorced, only one got any alimony. And every one of them had a job and raised children. When I divorced I got nothing. He was able to walk off with his MD and no debt for that MD cause I paid for it.
> 
> Today, 50% of women earn as much or more than their husband. There would be no alimony doing to a woman in these cases.
> 
> A lot of states, to include California, now allow for the idea in divorce that the lower earning spouse (usually the woman who is a SAHM) has a set amount of time to get alimony but has to become self-supporting. If she doesn't alimony stops.


I would be interested to know what state you are in because my cheating, drug using, former felon XW is collecting from me until July.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I would be interested to know what state you are in because my cheating, drug using, former felon XW is collecting from me until July.


July, until what day and the hour?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I would be interested to know what state you are in because my cheating, drug using, former felon XW is collecting from me until July.


This July? Are you throwing a party? lol


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

jonty30 said:


> July, until what day and the hour?


1st


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

jonty30 said:


> Most of us have your view on marriage, but we live in a world where they end up marrying people who don't have that view.
> There is just no guarantee on the other person.


Well we are both previously divorced after long first marriages so you can't say we haven't both been there and done it and worn the t shirt.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> I agree with you that the laws need to change. The laws we have now were created to correct problems that existed when women could not work to support themselves and their children and all assets legally belonged only to the man. Times have changed and the laws need to catch up. Long term or permanent alimony should be very rare now. I can see rehabilitative alimony for a SAHM or a woman who can't earn enough to support herself. But if she does not do the work get the training to be self-supporting in a reasonable about of time, then the alimony should change.
> 
> Our society is changing so fast that it's hard for the laws to keep up with the changes.
> 
> But I still believe that honesty is very important.


Exactly.
I know of a situation right now where a working wife (wife and husband both have had full time jobs Since college) is raking the husband over the coals….. because she can. Because the law does. Not. Care. Women unfortunately right now can abuse the law that was meant to protect SAHM. Not all women will do that of course. There are plenty that have integrity. Unfortunately, abuse does happen and the “spirit” of the law isn’t followed (like many laws out there).


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Yea, my ex did that too. I however had made copies of everything, to include the records of the accounts taht he thought were secret. I had proof of him moving my money (earned from my job) to an account in his mother's name. Also had records of him making payments on his mother's and his father's houses. Boy, was he pissed when it showed them in court.


Wow! What a scumbag. You’re very fortunate, to no longer be with him.


----------



## Jimmysgirl (9 mo ago)

Maybe I'm the odd woman out, I don't know. My exh and I were a terrible match. I could've taken a lot. But we split 50/50, decided by us, and kept our business out of the hands of the courts. 
I'm a SAHM and have been for 20 years. If I were to meet a guy and he were to even suggest having separate lives, in any respect, after marriage I'd say "you're not the guy for me". If they think I deserve less because I'm not earning a paycheck... they'd be wrong. I bring plenty to the table and pull my weight in the family. If for one second a man thought I was less valuable while I'm at home raising children I'd say we have different priorities and that would be that. Even before kids when I was working I never understood separate bank accounts. We have to trust each other or it's never going to work. I think when mentoring young people is best to stick to facts and not opinions. Renting over owning is a decision they should make for themselves based on their unique circumstances. Burying money is certainly not displaying the trust a marriage should be built on.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Jimmysgirl said:


> Maybe I'm the odd woman out, I don't know. My exh and I were a terrible match. I could've taken a lot. But we split 50/50, decided by us, and kept our business out of the hands of the courts.
> I'm a SAHM and have been for 20 years. If I were to meet a guy and he were to even suggest having separate lives, in any respect, after marriage I'd say "you're not the guy for me". If they think I deserve less because I'm not earning a paycheck... they'd be wrong. I bring plenty to the table and pull my weight in the family. If for one second a man thought I was less valuable while I'm at home raising children I'd say we have different priorities and that would be that. Even before kids when I was working I never understood separate bank accounts. We have to trust each other or it's never going to work. I think when mentoring young people is best to stick to facts and not opinions. Renting over owning is a decision they should make for themselves based on their unique circumstances. Burying money is certainly not displaying the trust a marriage should be built on.


Keeping finances separate and not looking into your partners finances is the ultimate form of trust


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Keeping finances separate and not looking into your partners finances is the ultimate form of trust


It's the total opposite. Being open and honest and sharing everything is trust.


----------



## Jimmysgirl (9 mo ago)

pk1at said:


> Keeping finances separate and not looking into your partners finances is the ultimate form of trust


The ultimate form of trust is believing that your spouse isn't going to spend the mortgage money in your joint account on something frivolous.
Everything in your original post is based on having no trust at all. Marry her..but hide what you can from her and make her promise to never touch what's yours. If that's trust what is distrust?


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Hiding assets is the same thing as lying about assets. I think you are sending a very bad message to these boys that they should not be fully transparent with a spouse.
> 
> I think there can be an argument made for a prenup in the case of two well established adults that have significant assets. As for the boys in your family getting married. It sounds like they are around 20 and I assume nothing substantial in assets. In those cases I think they are much better off in an us against the world arrangement, not a me and you arrangement. _(ETA: probably better stated as a mine and yours arrangement) _It has been my personal experience that when you are starting off with nothing or very little life is a lot easier if you are a combined team, not adversaries from day one.


Its not the same as lying, similar to how women in medieval times would hide some money from their husband in closet for emergencies, its protection from unpredictable spouse or exigent situations. Boys are between 16-20, but will be involved in family business and investments. They are also planning a career in the tech sector with higher starting salaries. Highly doubtful their future wives will be in a similar financial situtaion. Our family is very close knit and divorce is un-heard of, but with 60% breakup rate in our area means it would be foolish to not prepare for it


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Exactly.
> I know of a situation right now where a working wife (wife and husband both have had full time jobs Since college) is raking the husband over the coals….. because she can. Because the law does. Not. Care. Women unfortunately right now can abuse the law that was meant to protect SAHM. Not all women will do that of course. There are plenty that have integrity. Unfortunately, abuse does happen and the “spirit” of the law isn’t followed (like many laws out there).


Many times the women have no idea how much of torture they can inflict on men, there are a host of anti-male government agencies that are activated upon complaint but men don't have this facility


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its not the same as lying, similar to how women in medieval times would hide some money from their husband in closet for emergencies, its protection from unpredictable spouse or exigent situations. Boys are between 16-20, but will be involved in family business and investments. They are also planning a career in the tech sector with higher starting salaries. Highly doubtful their future wives will be in a similar financial situtaion. Our family is very close knit and divorce is un-heard of, but with 60% breakup rate in our area means it would be foolish to not prepare for it


Have a few dollars in a cookie jar is NOT the same as refusing to purchase a house with someone or refusing to support children you may have. Your boys should just not marry. Hire housekeepers and prostitutes, that way they never share anything, just pay for services rendered.

It's VERY telling that you don't believe women can have lucrative careers.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Have a few dollars in a cookie jar is NOT the same as refusing to purchase a house with someone or refusing to support children you may have. Your boys should just not marry. Hire housekeepers and prostitutes, that way they never share anything, just pay for services rendered.
> 
> It's VERY telling that you don't believe women can have lucrative careers.


They can?!?!?! 🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> They can?!?!?! 🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣


Easy now, don't get over your skis... 😉 🤪 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 They can and they SHOULD. Women would be less likely to put up with stuff like "We are never going to buy a house because I don't want to give you a single solitary cent of my money ever and don't trust you not to just steal everything from me." 😂😂😂


----------



## Jimmysgirl (9 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It's VERY telling that you don't believe women can have lucrative careers.


It's also telling, and unfortunate for the boys involved, that they're being TAUGHT than money holds more value than their wife and children. The talk about "family business" and "family investment" when in reality once you get married your family dynamic grows and changes. To say this is your family and that is a woman you have to go to great lengths to protect yourself from is sad.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Have a few dollars in a cookie jar is NOT the same as refusing to purchase a house with someone or refusing to support children you may have. Your boys should just not marry. Hire housekeepers and prostitutes, that way they never share anything, just pay for services rendered.
> 
> It's VERY telling that you don't believe women can have lucrative careers.


Where did the refusal to support children come up? In tech jobs that pay pay above > 300K its mostly men, so odds are that wives will earn less. If they marry higher paying women, then their wives get to keep all they make, no one is talking about stealing here


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Where did the refusal to support children come up? In tech jobs that pay pay above > 300K its mostly men, so odds are that wives will earn less. If they marry higher paying women, then their wives get to keep all they make, no one is talking about stealing here


They really shouldn't marry at all. Just hire housekeepers and leave it at that. Then they never have to share anything with anyone.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Jimmysgirl said:


> It's also telling, and unfortunate for the boys involved, that they're being TAUGHT than money holds more value than their wife and children. The talk about "family business" and "family investment" when in reality once you get married your family dynamic grows and changes. To say this is your family and that is a woman you have to go to great lengths to protect yourself from is sad.


We've always kept money and relationships separate, from several generations, don't need your moral grandstanding about which holds more value


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> They really shouldn't marry at all. Just hire housekeepers and leave it at that. Then they never have to share anything with anyone.


That's what I am trying to find out, what are their options if they decide to marry


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Easy now, don't get over your skis... 😉 🤪 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 They can and they SHOULD. Women would be less likely to put up with stuff like "We are never going to buy a house because I don't want to give you a single solitary cent of my money ever and don't trust you not to just steal everything from me." 😂😂😂


I'm all for that. Would have kept my money safe. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> They really shouldn't marry at all. Just hire housekeepers and leave it at that. Then they never have to share anything with anyone.


That's a great idea!!


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Looks like I have burst the 'get rich by marriage dreams' some women have by talking about post-nups, explains some of the outbursts about sharing money in this thread!


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its not the same as lying, similar to how women in medieval times would hide some money from their husband in closet for emergencies, its protection from unpredictable spouse or exigent situations. Boys are between 16-20, but will be involved in family business and investments. They are also planning a career in the tech sector with higher starting salaries. Highly doubtful their future wives will be in a similar financial situtaion. Our family is very close knit and divorce is un-heard of, but with 60% breakup rate in our area means it would be foolish to not prepare for it


If these kids are earning $300k per year as a starting salary, which I highly doubt, and are shareholders in the family business, then they will be able to hire very good lawyers. Those lawyers can draw up pre-nuptial agreements to exclude the family businesses from being considered marital assets & they can come up with something to protect the bulk of the income but maybe not all of it. Alimony is disfavored in the modern law & is rarely awarded for short marriages. The lifestyle to which one has been accustomed to standard for a short marriage when that lifestyle was solely provided by one spouse is an anachronism; nobody has to fork over 1/2 their assets forever but there may be some adjustment period

To be valid a pre-nup is based on FULL DISCLOSURE up front. Hiding assets in advance can invalidate the whole thing & make the judge view the party seeking the protections with great prejudice. 

If things change, ante-nuptial agreements can also be created to address changed circumstances. 

But marriage is all about two becoming one & sharing, functioning as a team. Somebody with a me, me, me, greedy mentality, probably shouldn't marry.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its not the same as lying, similar to how women in medieval times would hide some money from their husband in closet for emergencies, its protection from unpredictable spouse or exigent situations. Boys are between 16-20, but will be involved in family business and investments. They are also planning a career in the tech sector with higher starting salaries. Highly doubtful their future wives will be in a similar financial situtaion. Our family is very close knit and divorce is un-heard of, but with 60% breakup rate in our area means it would be foolish to not prepare for it


It is lying.


You obviously have a very low opinion of women in general. My daughter happens to have just entered the tech sector BTW. I'm in a tech company and our CEO is a woman. You seem to think any woman these guys will find will be below them in some way. You sound very misogynistic.

If there is a family business involved then get a good prenup drawn up. All this other hokey, underhanded questionable stuff you are talking about is just stupid and telling these kids this is what they need to do is just passing along your misogynistic attitude. Once married, everything from there forward should be a team effort. You are setting them up to have their marriage fail.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Many times the women have no idea how much of torture they can inflict on men, there are a host of anti-male government agencies that are activated upon complaint but men don't have this facility


And it's a shame, really. 


I do appreciate the spirit of these laws. You can't just throw a SAHM out on the street with nothing. That isn't fair or morally right. I don't even blame some of the women that abuse these laws. A change is coming to their lives, they get scared and go into survival mode. They aren't necessarily looking to hurt the man severely even though they do - then realize years later they did something terrible to another human being but by then it is too late. Some women unfortunately are vindictive and abuse these laws in purpose. I think those are the minority. 

And let's not fool ourselves: if the laws were written in reverse, there are men that would abuse them in the same way. It is a matter of some humans have integrity while others do not.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LATERILUS79 said:


> I don't even blame some of the women that abuse these laws.


Really??? Fine, I'll hook you up with my XW then.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is lying.
> 
> 
> You obviously have a very low opinion of women in general. My daughter happens to have just entered the tech sector BTW. I'm in a tech company and our CEO is a woman. You seem to think any woman these guys will find will be below them in some way. You sound very misogynistic.
> ...


If they find someone better, good for them, I am preparing them (and our family) for the most likely outcome (average pay, liberal arts background divorced parent woman) and worst outcome (starts out good but turns to trash later).

What do you want me to tell them? Younger version of Sheryl Sandberg is waiting for them with open arms and she will share everything she has with you, be loyal to you and everyone will get rich? After-all women have now entered tech and make up whopping 15% of high paying positions, although less than 10% of these women are looking to marry, you'll hit the 1.5/100 lottery.
You can keep your misogynistic opinion to yourself


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

pk1at 

What happens if your young family members turn out to be the bad guys in the marriage -- cheaters, substance users, physically or mentally abusive?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> I'm all for that. Would have kept my money safe. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


I know, and I'm so sorry about what happened, but it's not all women. Some people are mean and bad, but it's not everyone. I'd be very skeptical of a woman who said "no pre-nups," especially if they're older and have established careers and businesses. What the OP is suggesting is essentially a roommate agreement. I'm very interested in what expectations he's placing on these women as far as their role in the marriage. 

And if he's worried these women are going to take "family" money he can write his will that under no circumstances must any woman benefit from the money he has earned. Or he could follow his own advice and be buried with it. 😂


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I know, and I'm so sorry about what happened, but it's not all women. Some people are mean and bad, but it's not everyone. I'd be very skeptical of a woman who said "no pre-nups," especially if they're older and have established careers and businesses. What the OP is suggesting is essentially a roommate agreement. I'm very interested in what expectations he's placing on these women as far as their role in the marriage.
> 
> And if he's worried these women are going to take "family" money he can write his will that under no circumstances must any woman benefit from the money he has earned. Or he could follow his own advice and be buried with it. 😂


I will keep my thoughts on this subject to myself but I will say that I think the OP is going a little overboard.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Looks like I have burst the 'get rich by marriage dreams' some women have by talking about post-nups, explains some of the outbursts about sharing money in this thread!


I would never get a prenup or post nup but guess what, when I married my second husband my assets were far more than his. I had a house, he didn't. So I guess I wasn't looking to 'get rich by marriage'. 
It's a shame that these teens haven't got someone talking to them who can teach them the value and importance of marriage and that their wife is actually more important than money. Someone who hasn't got a fear of loosing money and someone who values honestly and openness in marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I know, and I'm so sorry about what happened, but it's not all women. Some people are mean and bad, but it's not everyone. I'd be very skeptical of a woman who said "no pre-nups," especially if they're older and have established careers and businesses. What the OP is suggesting is essentially a roommate agreement. I'm very interested in what expectations he's placing on these women as far as their role in the marriage.
> 
> And if he's worried these women are going to take "family" money he can write his will that under no circumstances must any woman benefit from the money he has earned. Or he could follow his own advice and be buried with it. 😂


You are skeptical of me then😅


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> You are skeptical of me then😅


You ARE pretty shady... 😉 🥰😂😂😂


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I would never get a prenup or post nup but guess what, when I married my second husband my assets were far more than his. I had a house, he didn't. So I guess I wasn't looking to 'get rich by marriage'.
> It's a shame that these teens haven't got someone talking to them who can teach them the value and importance of marriage and that their wife is actually more important than money. Someone who hasn't got a fear of loosing money and someone who values honestly and openness in marriage.


I'm sad someone is teaching that all women are money-hungry, mercenary thieves looking to ruin them financially. Again I say, if they don't think women are more than that, don't marry. Hire the "services" you require and establish no personal relationships at all. 

It really sounds like the OP had a nasty divorce and hates women, and that's why he paints us all with this broad brush. I also had WAY more money and stability when I married. I definitely did NOT marry for money. Maybe that's why my H married me instead of the cheerleaders and strippers he was dating before; no question what THEY wanted.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TexasMom1216 said:


> You ARE pretty shady... 😉 🥰😂😂😂


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> That's what I am trying to find out, what are their options if they decide to marry


A prenup. The rest of your list is whackadoodle, and a recipe for a long, expensive divorce.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

DownButNotOut said:


> A prenup. The rest of your list is whackadoodle, and a recipe for a long, expensive divorce.


Best response so far.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Beat response so far.


Beat??? Who got beat?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Beat??? Who got beat?


Curse you, autocorrect! BEST. I fixed it. But I know what you’re thinking… beat… 🤭


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Curse you, autocorrect! BEST. I fixed it. But I know what you’re thinking… beat… 🤭


Trying to lighten up this thread LOL


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Trying to lighten up this thread LOL


It’s a sad thread. About two very unhappy people and I’m not sure how to help. 😔


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

LATERILUS79 said:


> And it's a shame, really.
> 
> 
> I do appreciate the spirit of these laws. You can't just throw a SAHM out on the street with nothing. That isn't fair or morally right. I don't even blame some of the women that abuse these laws. A change is coming to their lives, they get scared and go into survival mode. They aren't necessarily looking to hurt the man severely even though they do - then realize years later they did something terrible to another human being but by then it is too late. Some women unfortunately are vindictive and abuse these laws in purpose. I think those are the minority.
> ...


This is why I believe in today's environment a prenup is a must. Both parties ensure their interests are protected; will know in advance exactly how a divorce will go; and have the chance to reach agreement in the beginning when they're still in love. Then they can get on with trying to never have to use it.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

DownButNotOut said:


> This is why I believe in today's environment a prenup is a must. Both parties ensure their interests are protected; will know in advance exactly how a divorce will go; and have the chance to reach agreement in the beginning when they're still in love. Then they can get on with trying to never have to use it.


I don't want to go into marriage with the attitude that I need to protect 'my' money and making arrangements for a divorce. 
Whatever happened to 'with all my wordly goods I thee endow?'

Everything we have had is ours, even two small inheritances we got were never his or mine.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I don't want to go into marriage with the attitude that I need to protect 'my' money and making arrangements for a divorce.
> Whatever happened to 'with all my wordly goods I thee endow?'
> 
> Everything we have had is ours, even two small inheritances we got were never his or mine.


Diana, I believe in that as well...... but sometimes you don't know someone you thought you knew.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Really??? Fine, I'll hook you up with my XW then.


Oh no...... I read all about that trainwreck. I'd rather blind myself with a red hot poker. 


Your x definitely is all about malicious abuse. I'm saying sometimes semi decent people do things that are bad even if they didn't intend to because they are selfish and self centered.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Diana, I believe in that as well...... but sometimes you don't know someone you thought you knew.


As I said before many things in life are a risk. You can't wrap yourself in cotton wool in case you may get hurt.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Diana7 said:


> I don't want to go into marriage with the attitude that I need to protect 'my' money and making arrangements for a divorce.
> Whatever happened to 'with all my wordly goods I thee endow?'
> 
> Everything we have had is ours, even two small inheritances we got were never his or mine.


I know where you're coming from. But, respectfully, I'm not talking about you, or me for that matter. I'm talking about my advice for young men considering their first marriage to young women with today's family law environment.

Given that divorce is a statistical coin flip, it seems prudent to me to plan for both outcomes. Besides, if a couple can't work through a difficult topic at the height of their good will, how will they work through difficult topics after the honeymoon ends?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> Keeping finances separate and not looking into your partners finances is the ultimate form of trust


I find this comment coming from you amusing. You are the one here talking about teaching young men how to hide their income and assets from their spouse if/when they get married. Basically, you want to teach them to take advantage of the love and trust their wife would have for them.

We have people post on here all the time talking about how they just found out that their spouse has been secretly running up debt, hiding assets, lying about income, etc.

I would never expect a spouse to 'just trust me'. Nope, everything should be open and transparent in marriage.

Since you are teaching these young guys to be dishonest with their potential wife, what are you teaching them about their obligations in marriage? Are you telling them that they need to do 50% of all childcare, all house work, cooking, etc.? What happens if one of them becomes disabled and can't support himself? I guess with your attitude, their wife should divorce them since the guy won't be able to support themself.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Going to play Devil's advocate here for a second. One one side you have a man who is insistent that you should hide your assets from a potential spouse out of concern that the spouse would take them in a divorce. One the other side you have a woman saying that her love is contingent on her having access to those assets. Seems like a lose/lose proposition. I'll stay single.

My answer to this would be that only assets gained DURING the marriage are open to division. Any money EITHER partner had BEFORE the marriage should be untouchable by the other. May not be popular but seems like the best way.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> Really??? Fine, I'll hook you up with my XW then.





Numb26 said:


> They can?!?!?! 🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣


Since about 50% of women earn as much or more than their husband, it's pretty clear that there are women who can have careers that are as lucrative as their husband's careers at the very least.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> Going to play Devil's advocate here for a second. One one side you have a man who is insistent that you should hide your assets from a potential spouse out of concern that the spouse would take them in a divorce. One the other side you have a woman saying that her love is contingent on her having access to those assets. Seems like a lose/lose proposition. I'll stay single.
> 
> My answer to this would be that only assets gained DURING the marriage are open to division. Any money EITHER partner had BEFORE the marriage should be untouchable by the other. May not be popular but seems like the best way.


Why would that not be popular? It's the law in most states. It's also the law in most states that inheritance belongs only to the spouse who inherited it. The trick is to not mix the separate assets with community assets. Or if they are mixed make sure to have a strong prenup or postnup.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Going to play Devil's advocate here for a second. One one side you have a man who is insistent that you should hide your assets from a potential spouse out of concern that the spouse would take them in a divorce. One the other side you have a woman saying that her love is contingent on her having access to those assets. Seems like a lose/lose proposition. I'll stay single.
> 
> My answer to this would be that only assets gained DURING the marriage are open to division. Any money EITHER partner had BEFORE the marriage should be untouchable by the other. May not be popular but seems like the best way.


I would be in favor of a law like this. That family money, previous earnings, etc were not part of the settlement. We need to do a LOT of work on marriage and family court laws. As has been said, the world has changed and the laws haven’t. If it weren’t possible for women to take men to the cleaners with a divorce, those bad women wouldn’t marry and we wouldn’t have this problem.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I would be in favor of a law like this. That family money, previous earnings, etc were not part of the settlement. We need to do a LOT of work on marriage and family court laws. As has been said, the world has changed and the laws haven’t. If it weren’t possible for women to take men to the cleaners with a divorce, those bad women wouldn’t marry and we wouldn’t have this problem.


Divorce laws in most states recognize separate property that is comprised of assets a person had before marriage and anything they inherit.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I would be in favor of a law like this. That family money, previous earnings, etc were not part of the settlement. We need to do a LOT of work on marriage and family court laws. As has been said, the world has changed and the laws haven’t. If it weren’t possible for women to take men to the cleaners with a divorce, those bad women wouldn’t marry and we wouldn’t have this problem.


Here's the law in your state....

Here's an article that addresses the topic. I'm quoting only a small part of the discussion on the many things that are considered separate property and cannot be claimed by a spouse in a divorce...

_"Separate property includes anything that belonged to one spouse before marriage and was kept separate throughout the marriage. It could also include income from separate property, property that was given only to one spouse during the marriage--for example, a gift made by a friend or family member to the husband alone, or an inheritance that the wife received from a relative. (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 3.001.) "_​_Texas Divorce: Dividing Property | DivorceNet_​


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Going to play Devil's advocate here for a second. One one side you have a man who is insistent that you should hide your assets from a potential spouse out of concern that the spouse would take them in a divorce. One the other side you have a woman saying that her love is contingent on her having access to those assets. Seems like a lose/lose proposition. I'll stay single.
> 
> My answer to this would be that only assets gained DURING the marriage are open to division. Any money EITHER partner had BEFORE the marriage should be untouchable by the other. May not be popular but seems like the best way.


That's not what the OP is saying, though. He's talking about hiding assets gained DURING the marriage. He's talking about literally burying in the yard money earned during a marriage so she doesn't know about it and will never have access to it. 

And that's about one of the more ****ed up things I've ever heard. 

People like that should never get married. Why would they even want to?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Here's the law in your state....
> 
> Here's an article that addresses the topic. I'm quoting only a small part of the discussion on the many things that are considered separate property and cannot be claimed by a spouse in a divorce...
> 
> _"Separate property includes anything that belonged to one spouse before marriage and was kept separate throughout the marriage. It could also include income from separate property, property that was given only to one spouse during the marriage--for example, a gift made by a friend or family member to the husband alone, or an inheritance that the wife received from a relative. (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 3.001.) "_​_Texas Divorce: Dividing Property | DivorceNet_​


Thanks. I honestly don’t know any of the divorce laws in my state, I figure when the time comes we’ll liquidate and split what we acquired together and go our separate ways. No plans for “alimony,” that’s not my style. I know women take advantage, they’re giving us all a bad name by doing that.


----------



## snowbum (Dec 14, 2021)

18 year olds aren’t jaded. This is crap


----------



## snowbum (Dec 14, 2021)

You sound like a paranoid nut


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

EleGirl said:


> Since about 50% of women earn as much or more than their husband, it's pretty clear that there are women who can have careers that are as lucrative as their husband's careers at the very least.


Of course, the divorce rate when the wife earns more is 50% higher. So there's that.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Livvie said:


> That's not what the OP is saying, though. He's talking about hiding assets gained DURING the marriage. He's talking about literally burying in the yard money earned during a marriage so she doesn't know about it and will never have access to it.
> 
> And that's about one of the more ****ed up things I've ever heard.
> 
> People like that should never get married. Why would they even want to?


I wouldn’t hide assets in the marriage. That is dishonest.

I do think that assets gained in marriage should have more nuance than 50/50.

what if both spouses worked for the entire marriage? What if one spouse saved their money, paid all the bills and paid the mortgage while the other spouse blew all of their money and didn’t save anything?

the law says 50/50.

personally, I think that is stealing in a divorce, but that is just me. I’d be hard pressed to be convinced otherwise.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

LATERILUS79 said:


> I wouldn’t hide assets in the marriage. That is dishonest.
> 
> I do think that assets gained in marriage should have more nuance than 50/50.
> 
> ...


Or like when one spouse (cough my-ex cough) hid 20 credit cards to the tune of 60k? 50/50 pal.
Or when one spouse (cough my-stupid-butt cough) uses inheritance to buy a new family home. Because marriage is forever. 50/50 oops.

Well, in my case the debt ended up 0/100 to me, and the house 100/0 to her. So much for that 50/50 deal. At least there's only 18 more years of alimony left.

Yeah, my advice is probably just a wee bit colored by my personal experience. But I still advise young men to not get married. If they must, a prenup is mandatory.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

DownButNotOut said:


> Of course, the divorce rate when the wife earns more is 50% higher. So there's that.


Yes, and the rate of the husband cheating is many times higher if his wife earns more. 

Trying to paint one sex as being evil is not ok. There are good on bad people in both sexes.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

EleGirl said:


> Yes, and the rate of the husband cheating is many times higher if his wife earns more.
> 
> Trying to paint one sex as being evil is not ok. There are good on bad people in both sexes.


If you're talking about the 2010 Cornell study,
Actually that's if the wife is the sole breadwinner. And the rate is 15%. versus 4% if the husband is the sole breadwinner. That's male infidelity.

Meanwhile, women who earn equal to their partner are twice as likely to cheat than women solely dependent on their partner.

Interestingly, in the same study, men are least likely to cheat if their partner earns about 75% of what they do.

So as you can see, there's plenty to go around. There is a higher rate on infidelity for both parties when the woman earns more than her man.

Saying that the rate of divorce is higher is a simple statistic. It isn't casting either party as evil.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

D0nnivain said:


> pk1at
> 
> What happens if your young family members turn out to be the bad guys in the marriage -- cheaters, substance users, physically or mentally abusive?


Then their wives assets will be protected and our family's grand-children will see less fights. The post-nup agreements protect both ways. If the 'boys' tread down the wrong path, they should get full punishment for it


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

snowbum said:


> 18 year olds aren’t jaded. This is crap


Yes, isn't it sad that someone would try and pass on their own fears and insecurities to mere youngsters.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Yes, isn't it sad that someone would try and pass on their own fears and insecurities to mere youngsters.


Neither fear nor insecurity, just options to retain financial independence after marriage or still better 'teaching people to not marry for money'


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Neither fear nor insecurity, just options to retain financial independence after marriage or still better 'teaching people to not marry for money'


If you want to be independent then why marry? 
Plus you need to leave teenagers to make their own decisions. Advising a teen not to tell a future spouse how much they earn or have is dreadful advise. It's unlikely they would even find a person who would want to have a husband who acts that way anyway.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> If you want to be independent then why marry?
> Plus you need to leave teenagers to make their own decisions. Advising a teen not to tell a future spouse how much they earn or have is dreadful advise. It's unlikely they would even find a person who would want to have a husband who acts that way anyway.


Or a wife. If you told someone that you as a woman want to hide money from your husband people would lose their minds. This is about someone badly burned in a divorce trying to convince young men that all women are mercenary, money-grubbing thieves who only "marry for money" and need to be taught that they'll be left in poverty if they stay at home with their children. It's really sad and I hope those young people have other influences in their lives. We wouldn't want some blue-haired, man-hating feminazi telling women not to marry because all men are bad, but this is ok? It's crazy.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I'm sad someone is teaching that all women are money-hungry, mercenary thieves looking to ruin them financially. Again I say, if they don't think women are more than that, don't marry. Hire the "services" you require and establish no personal relationships at all.
> 
> It really sounds like the OP had a nasty divorce and hates women, and that's why he paints us all with this broad brush. I also had WAY more money and stability when I married. I definitely did NOT marry for money. Maybe that's why my H married me instead of the cheerleaders and strippers he was dating before; no question what THEY wanted.


You don't know me, the women in my family or my financial position. Can we stop with these attacks "nasty divorce and hates women", "all women are money-hungry, mercenary thieves looking to ruin them financially", if you don't have good advice on pre/post-nups or if you feel any man that wants to have separate finances after marriage is a monster, that's your opinion which can be voiced without name calling


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

pk1at said:


> You don't know me, the women in my family or my financial position. Can we stop with these attacks "nasty divorce and hates women", "all women are money-hungry, mercenary thieves looking to ruin them financially", if you don't have good advice on pre/post-nups or if you feel any man that wants to have separate finances after marriage is a monster, that's your opinion which can be voiced without name calling


First time here?????🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> If you want to be independent then why marry?
> Plus you need to leave teenagers to make their own decisions. Advising a teen not to tell a future spouse how much they earn or have is dreadful advise. It's unlikely they would even find a person who would want to have a husband who acts that way anyway.


Family, marriage and children are very important, we just want to separate income and assets beyond what is necessary to maintain a home with children. 
Advice to boys has worked great so far and you can leave the 'finding a person who would want a husband' to us


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

DownButNotOut said:


> Or like when one spouse (cough my-ex cough) hid 20 credit cards to the tune of 60k? 50/50 pal.
> Or when one spouse (cough my-stupid-butt cough) uses inheritance to buy a new family home. Because marriage is forever. 50/50 oops.
> 
> Well, in my case the debt ended up 0/100 to me, and the house 100/0 to her. So much for that 50/50 deal. At least there's only 18 more years of alimony left.
> ...


Ouch, sorry brother. Crappy attorney, judge or both? What state? Horrible.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Family, marriage and children are very important, we just want to separate income and assets beyond what is necessary to maintain a home with children.
> Advice to boys has worked great so far and you can leave the 'finding a person who would want a husband' to us


The boys are just teenagers. It will probably be many years before they will be thinking of marriage. Your focus on money is unsettling.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

pk1at said:


> A few family members (boys) are planning to get married in the next couple years. One question I am frequently asked is how do I keep what I earn separate from spouse. Initially my reaction was to advise not marrying


That's my advice. Why get married? Marriage is a union of 2 people becoming one unit. Just live together, no sense in getting married if both are going to act like roommates.


----------



## FloridaGuy1 (Nov 4, 2019)

drencrom said:


> That's my advice. Why get married? Marriage is a union of 2 people becoming one unit. Just live together, no sense in getting married if both are going to act like roommates.


Actually, I wouldn't suggest living together then either as some states recognize a certain amount of time together to become a united couple. So being together 7 or 10 years could be seen by the courts as pretty close to being married.

Gotta go "Bachelor Pad" style and no females stay longer than 24 hrs LOL


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Actually, I wouldn't suggest living together then either as some states recognize a certain amount of time together to become a united couple. So being together 7 or 10 years could be seen by the courts as pretty close to being married.
> 
> Gotta go "Bachelor Pad" style and no females stay longer than 24 hrs LOL


That's true. Common law should be abolished.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

FloridaGuy1 said:


> Actually, I wouldn't suggest living together then either as some states recognize a certain amount of time together to become a united couple. So being together 7 or 10 years could be seen by the courts as pretty close to being married.
> 
> Gotta go "Bachelor Pad" style and no females stay longer than 24 hrs LOL


24?? They got 6 at the most!!


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

drencrom said:


> That's true. Common law should be abolished.


We need government out of marriage entirely. Civil unions if people choose. Custom contracts would be even better, that way some dudes can say "she can live here but I will give her NOTHING. Not even cab fare, she's just trying to steal my money." 😂


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

drencrom said:


> That's my advice. Why get married? Marriage is a union of 2 people becoming one unit. Just live together, no sense in getting married if both are going to act like roommates.


Who decided this '2 people becoming one unit' ? Other than forcible (default) merger of assets obtained post marriage, there is nothing else that is becoming one unit. When it comes to employment, plane tickets ,housing, voting etc. they are treated very much as two separate people.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Who decided this '2 people becoming one unit' ? Other than forcible (default) merger of assets obtained post marriage, there is nothing else that is becoming one unit. When it comes to employment, plane tickets ,housing, voting etc. they are treated very much as two separate people.


It's what marriage is all about.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> We need government out of marriage entirely. Civil unions if people choose. Custom contracts would be even better, that way some dudes can say "she can live here but I will give her NOTHING. Not even cab fare, she's just trying to steal my money." 😂


I disagree with getting government out of marriage. Marriage, and family, is the basis of society and our economy. Without laws that govern things like how marital income, assets, debt, inheritance, etc. there would be complete chaos.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

TexasMom1216 said:


> We need government out of marriage entirely. Civil unions if people choose. Custom contracts would be even better, that way some dudes can say "she can live here but I will give her NOTHING. Not even cab fare, she's just trying to steal my money." 😂


It's not about the marriage, it's about the divorce.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

pk1at said:


> Plenty of reasons, for family, for religion, for children etc. what I don't want is the government dictating me (in this case the boys) to pay a portion of hard earned money if things don't work out


Especially if a spouse cheats. I think if cheating is involved assets should be divided 66% vs 33% With the larger portion going to the BS. And no alimony due to adultry.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Especially if a spouse cheats. I think if cheating is involved assets should be divided 66% vs 33% With the larger portion going to the BS. And no alimony due to adultry.


Depends if there are children involved. They should always come first. Plus what if the BS had done equally bad things such as was always drunk, was abusive, had refused sex for 15 years etc. Often there are two sides to a story.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> Especially if a spouse cheats. I think if cheating is involved assets should be divided 66% vs 33% With the larger portion going to the BS. And no alimony due to adultry.


No. Courts aren't equipped to judge that. 

What about abuse?

What about addiction?

What about neglect?

What about unreasonable habits or massive assholishness?

That's why there is no fault divorce. 

Also, just because someone chose a poor spouse doesn't mean that person should keep most of the marital assets potentially leaving the taxpayers to support the divorced spouse. No thanks.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

EleGirl said:


> I disagree with getting government out of marriage. Marriage, and family, is the basis of society and our economy. Without laws that govern things like how marital income, assets, debt, inheritance, etc. there would be complete chaos.


Its not as bad as you make it sound. Half the population seems to be getting along fine without marriage. 13% or so are in live in relationships throughout their life. If Marriage is that critical to society, how can employers fire you without looking at your marital status?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> No. Courts aren't equipped to judge that.
> 
> What about abuse?
> 
> ...


It is simple, proof of cheating...done. Also does not mean a BS should have to support a WS. All other things 50/50.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> Depends if there are children involved. They should always come first. Plus what if the BS had done equally bad things such as was always drunk, was abusive, had refused sex for 15 years etc. Often there are two sides to a story.


Then they should have divorced them before committing adultry.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> Especially if a spouse cheats. I think if cheating is involved assets should be divided 66% vs 33% With the larger portion going to the BS. And no alimony due to adultry.


Very outdated view as both asset division and alimony can be changed using a pre or post-nup. Wealthier folks also have trusts


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Divinely Favored said:


> It is simple, proof of cheating...done. Also does not mean a BS should have to support a WS. All other things 50/50.


I guess you have never sat in on family law/divorce cases in court.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Livvie said:


> I guess you have never sat in on family law/divorce cases in court.


Right? Had to pay mine while she was in prison


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

__





Tesla's Elon Musk runs out of cash


Silicon Valley icon and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has been taking out loans and living off his friends' money ever since his own bank account ran dry.



money.cnn.com




Musk shows us how to hide El-Dorado in your backyard during divorce!


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

pk1at said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why are you posting a sketchy 2010 dated article?


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Why are you posting a sketchy 2010 dated article?


There was debate here if it was legal to hide assets during divorce, Musk has shown us its perfectly OK to do so in 2010


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Divinely Favored said:


> It is simple, proof of cheating...done. Also does not mean a BS should have to support a WS. All other things 50/50.


I agree. The only time I think alimony should be paid is if there is no cheating AND the proof that one spouse did not want the other to work.

Other than that, no alimony, and 50/50....even in the event of cheating, it still sucks to have to split all of it with an a**hole or a hussbag, but it is what it is. Hey, way I looked at it....it was worth it.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Livvie said:


> I guess you have never sat in on family law/divorce cases in court.


I have. Cheating doesn't factor in on division of assets. It would seem that the slighted party should get something extra out of the deal, but that's not the way it works unfortunately.

However, it can make a difference in alimony. A judge can decide on his/her own that what they did was despicable and they deserve no reward for their debauchery. 

Assets are one thing.

Being rewarded for being a **** or a **** is quite another.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Right? Had to pay mine while she was in prison


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

drencrom said:


> View attachment 88062


Yeap. Judge said her being incarcerated had "no bearing" on my responsibility. It went into a savings account for when she got out.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Yeap. Judge said her being incarcerated had "no bearing" on my responsibility. It went into a savings account for when she got out.


Hmmm, but alimony is supposed to be for her to live. She doesn't need it when in prison. So she gets a windfall all for nothing more than being a criminal scumbag.

You must have had a real liberal POS judge. So how long you have to pay that skag?


----------



## SongoftheSouth (Apr 22, 2014)

there was a discussion about prenup agreements here not long ago. I had one. You need to have a clause about future earnings in the marriage being considered separate property. Then follow it to a T. Keep good records. Never co-mingle funds because that would void that part of the agreement and make sure large purchases (e.g. home) are considered separate property in your agreement and title/deed it that way. You can put nearly anything into a prenuptual agreement except child support and custody matters. Thats a serious no no as it is unenforceable and may get the whole thing tossed. I can provide greater details if you want but in general spell out how future earnings/stocks/pensions/retirements etc. will be considered separate property. Of course anything can be challenged so sometimes having the prenup as a bargaining tool can get things accomplished faster with an agreement everyone can live with when the divorce rolls around.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> There was debate here if it was legal to hide assets during divorce, Musk has shown us its perfectly OK to do so in 2010


It's not.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

SongoftheSouth said:


> there was a discussion about prenup agreements here not long ago. I had one. You need to have a clause about future earnings in the marriage being considered separate property. Then follow it to a T. Keep good records. Never co-mingle funds because that would void that part of the agreement and make sure large purchases (e.g. home) are considered separate property in your agreement and title/deed it that way. You can put nearly anything into a prenuptual agreement except child support and custody matters. Thats a serious no no as it is unenforceable and may get the whole thing tossed. I can provide greater details if you want but in general spell out how future earnings/stocks/pensions/retirements etc. will be considered separate property. Of course anything can be challenged so sometimes having the prenup as a bargaining tool can get things accomplished faster with an agreement everyone can live with when the divorce rolls around.


Or just don’t marry. Stay single and hire housekeepers and hookers. Clean and simple.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

drencrom said:


> I have. Cheating doesn't factor in on division of assets. It would seem that the slighted party should get something extra out of the deal, but that's not the way it works unfortunately.
> 
> However, it can make a difference in alimony. A judge can decide on his/her own that what they did was despicable and they deserve no reward for their debauchery.
> 
> ...


I had a really good wise solicitor. He said that who did what is irrelevant in how assets are distributed and who pays what to who. He said it's about children first, then making sure that each can afford to live and pay their bills.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Or just don’t marry. Stay single and hire housekeepers and hookers. Clean and simple.


Yes, seems so much less complicated than what some are advising.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Yes, seems so much less complicated than what some are advising.


And they keep taking about children. What kind of family situation would this produce? “We’d get you new shoes but your loser mother can’t afford her half.” Gross.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Yes, seems so much less complicated than what some are advising.


Its a defeatist attitude, at least in the US we have a lot of flexibility in financial/legal agreements. Its unfortunate that most people are unaware (or too late) and advise young men to not marry


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its a defeatist attitude, at least in the US we have a lot of flexibility in financial/legal agreements. Its unfortunate that most people are unaware (or too late) and advise young men to not marry


Young men with your attitude shouldn’t marry.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

drencrom said:


> Hmmm, but alimony is supposed to be for her to live. She doesn't need it when in prison. So she gets a windfall all for nothing more than being a criminal scumbag.
> 
> You must have had a real liberal POS judge. So how long you have to pay that skag?


Just until July 1st


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

SongoftheSouth said:


> there was a discussion about prenup agreements here not long ago. I had one. You need to have a clause about future earnings in the marriage being considered separate property. Then follow it to a T. Keep good records. Never co-mingle funds because that would void that part of the agreement and make sure large purchases (e.g. home) are considered separate property in your agreement and title/deed it that way. You can put nearly anything into a prenuptual agreement except child support and custody matters. Thats a serious no no as it is unenforceable and may get the whole thing tossed. I can provide greater details if you want but in general spell out how future earnings/stocks/pensions/retirements etc. will be considered separate property. Of course anything can be challenged so sometimes having the prenup as a bargaining tool can get things accomplished faster with an agreement everyone can live with when the divorce rolls around.


Thanks, what about revocable and irrevocable trusts? Financial institutions in the US are offering easy way to open and link these products to brokerage and checking accounts. So asking each kid to open something like Schwab trust one account on 18th birthday and deposit savings there should be a good idea?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> If Marriage is that critical to society, how can employers fire you without looking at your marital status?


Yea and our society is doing so well, isn't it? We have so many children growing up in homes without a father. Look at the crime rates. We have more people in prison than any other country and most of them are men who grew up without a father.

The people who do best in our society, even today, are those who marry and stay married.



pk1at said:


> If Marriage is that critical to society, how can employers fire you without looking at your marital status?


Employers are not regulated to that extent by our government. Businesses are created by people putting in their own money, time, effort and talent. They don't owe anyone a job.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

EleGirl said:


> Employers are not regulated to that extent by our government. Businesses are created by people putting in their own money, time, effort and talent. They don't owe anyone a job.


So why are married people's assets being regulated? If asset creation is not regulated in anyway why should asset division be regulated. Each person in the marriage is putting in their own time, effort and talent, and they don't need the government to tell them they should split in half

The good news is that Alimony (most states) and now Child Support (shared parenting plans) is going the way of the dodo, so the 50:50 seems like the last relic standing


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> So why are married people's assets being regulated? If asset creation is not regulated in anyway why should asset division be regulated. Each person in the marriage is putting in their own time, effort and talent, and they don't need the government to tell them they should split in half
> 
> The good news is that Alimony (most states) and now Child Support (shared parenting plans) is going the way of the dodo, so the 50:50 seems like the last relic standing


Or just don’t marry at all. Then the government has no say on anything and you can just lie if you accidentally knock someone up.


----------



## SongoftheSouth (Apr 22, 2014)

Do not have time to read through 12 pages of this but what is the hostility to prenup arrangements? Its gender neutral and with women often earning more than men is a benefit to both genders based on the circumstances. Its also sexual orientation neutral as it can be applied in non traditional marriages as well. The famous singer Kelly Clarkson was recently divorced and her prenuptial agreement was enforced. She still paid her ex a fortune but could have been so much worse:

From Daily mail

As of now, their prenup will remain in place and the 39-year-old singer will pay her estranged husband $1.3 million. All assets and income derived during her marriage to the 45-year-old got separated through the agreement. This allowed her to own the Montana ranch, where her family spent vacations together in 2020.

In October 2021, the court ruled that the Montana ranch belonged to Clarkson. As of the time, Blackstock argued that all of the property and assets acquired during their marriage were shared 50/50 by the couple.

*However, the judge rejected that position, stating that property acquired during the marriage is subject to the prenuptial agreement.* In January 2022, the former couple agreed on who would own the ranch.

She could have really been clobbered if not for her agreement and this guy still walks away with a fortune. If you are a high earner compared to your future spouse an agreement beforehand is extremely wise irregardless of gender.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> So why are married people's assets being regulated? If asset creation is not regulated in anyway why should asset division be regulated. Each person in the marriage is putting in their own time, effort and talent, and they don't need the government to tell them they should split in half
> 
> The good news is that Alimony (most states) and now Child Support (shared parenting plans) is going the way of the dodo, so the 50:50 seems like the last relic standing


No. Even with shared custody if there is a huge discrepancy in earnings, there will be some child support. As there should be. Let's say a woman stayed out of the workforce to take care of the children and home for 15 years while her spouse was able to fully focus on his job. Then he decides to divorce her. They share custody, but he's earning 200k a year, she can pull in minimum wage. She should get some child support.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

To be clear, pre-nups are a good idea, especially if one or both are established prior to marriage or have family wealth.

The initial list of clever ways to lie to a woman so she can’t “steal all your money” because appqrentky that is what the OP thinks of women is, as one poster so eloquently put it, “whackadoodle.”


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> To be clear, pre-nups are a good idea, especially if one or both are established prior to marriage or have family wealth.
> 
> The initial list of clever ways to lie to a woman so she can’t “steal all your money” because appqrentky that is what the OP thinks of women is, as one poster so eloquently put it, “whackadoodle.”


To be fair, how often does a woman when getting divorced hear from her friends, family and lawyer to "take him for everything"? A LOT!


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> To be fair, how often does a woman when getting divorced hear from her friends, family and lawyer to "take him for everything"? A LOT!


It very much depends on who her friends are and why she is getting divorced. It’s important not to judge all women by a few bad ones. How often do men say “I want a stay at home wife and mother” and proceed to cheat constantly, because what is she gonna do, she has no money? A LOT!


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It very much depends on who her friends are and why she is getting divorced. It’s important not to judge all women by a few bad ones. How often do men say “I want a stay at home wife and mother” and proceed to cheat constantly, because what is she gonna do, she has no money? A LOT!


So what you are saying is nobody should get married? I agree! 😀


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> So what you are saying is nobody should get married? I agree! 😀


Honestly, I only got married because we were going to have a child. I didn’t want anyone telling me what to do or using me, and I never wanted to be afraid in my own home ever again. Considering what I’d seen and learned of marriage, I still wonder what on earth possessed me.


----------



## SongoftheSouth (Apr 22, 2014)

My advice to whoever started this discussion is to craft a good prenuptial agreement strongly defining separate property and how separate property will be maintained during the marriage. Trying to hide assets is typically foolish and may get your agreement tossed. Moreover, hiding debts you have prior to your marriage will make your agreement about as useful as a one legged man in an a$$ kicking contest. Full disclosure means just that.

My divorce lasted an agonizing 18 months. It was like reliving the same funeral over day after day. All people are different but I just wanted some peaceful resolution as we have a 14 year old son. I could have gone hard line and tried to enforce the entirety of the agreement but instead used it to save what was most important to me financially but gave my ex some considerations to what she desired by waiving part of the agreement. My sister thought it foolish to waive anything but at the end of the day giving up something I cannot take to the grave for a little peace was worth it. 

Whoever is started the discussion seriously take these things into consideration. Short cuts are unwise but having a clause regarding separate property and how it will be maintained during marriage is a must.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I guess you have never sat in on family law/divorce cases in court.


Did not say that was how it was. Just a response to another asking how to do it. I was in court during my wife's divorce to her serial cheating ex.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> So why are married people's assets being regulated? If asset creation is not regulated in anyway why should asset division be regulated. Each person in the marriage is putting in their own time, effort and talent, and they don't need the government to tell them they should split in half


Assets for businesses are regulated in that there are laws that apply for each business structure: C-Corp, S-Corp, LLC, Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, Non-Profit, etc. And then there are the businesses that are publicly owned and show up on the stock exchanges. These laws rule over things like split of profits, ownership of assets, obligation for debts, etc. Basically, much like marriage in many ways.

My point is that the government can't force any business to hire anyone. Businesses are not required to have employees other than the owners.



pk1at said:


> The good news is that Alimony (most states) and now Child Support (shared parenting plans) is going the way of the dodo, so the 50:50 seems like the last relic standing


Child support is not going the way of the dodo. What's happening is that the income of both parents and the amount of time the child(ren) spends with each parent is being taken into consideration. Even with a 50/50 division of physical custody, if one parent earns a lot more than the other, they will be paying some child support to help the lower earning parent provide for the children.

And alimony is becoming less of a thing because most marriages are two-income so most people can support themselves after a divorce. Alimony will remain for a spouse who needs it such as a women who spent decades as a stay-at-home-mom, a disabled spouse, etc.

Your attitude is so profoundly sad. The good thing is that women are no longer forced to marry some bloke that their parents pick out for them. So, they can decide to avoid guys with this attitude.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Or just don’t marry at all. Then the government has no say on anything and you can just lie if you accidentally knock someone up.


Nope, lying about someone who is accidently knocked up does not work anymore because we have DNA tests. The court can order one to prove/disprove paternity.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Nope, lying about someone who is accidently knocked up does not work anymore because we have DNA tests. The court can order one to prove/disprove paternity.


True. Poor guy, I guess that won’t work for him.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> To be fair, how often does a woman when getting divorced hear from her friends, family and lawyer to "take him for everything"? A LOT!





TexasMom1216 said:


> It very much depends on who her friends are and why she is getting divorced. It’s important not to judge all women by a few bad ones. How often do men say “I want a stay at home wife and mother” and proceed to cheat constantly, because what is she gonna do, she has no money? A LOT!


Absolutely, it depends on one's friends. I would not be friends with anyone who had taht attitude, nor would I hire a lawyer who does. 

It's clear that there are both men and women who get caught up the adversarial part of divorce and lawyers who love to stir the pot because they make more money that way.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

SongoftheSouth said:


> Do not have time to read through 12 pages of this but what is the hostility to prenup arrangements? Its gender neutral and with women often earning more than men is a benefit to both genders based on the circumstances. Its also sexual orientation neutral as it can be applied in non traditional marriages as well. The famous singer Kelly Clarkson was recently divorced and her prenuptial agreement was enforced. She still paid her ex a fortune but could have been so much worse:


I don't think anyone here is hostile to prenups. They make sense in certain cases. But the OP's opening post is ridicules to the point of telling his male teenage relatives to plan to bury money on their property to hide it from some wife they might have some years down the road.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

SongoftheSouth said:


> My advice to whoever started this discussion is to craft a good prenuptial agreement strongly defining separate property and how separate property will be maintained during the marriage. Trying to hide assets is typically foolish and may get your agreement tossed. Moreover, hiding debts you have prior to your marriage will make your agreement about as useful as a one legged man in an a$$ kicking contest. Full disclosure means just that.
> 
> My divorce lasted an agonizing 18 months. It was like reliving the same funeral over day after day. All people are different but I just wanted some peaceful resolution as we have a 14 year old son. I could have gone hard line and tried to enforce the entirety of the agreement but instead used it to save what was most important to me financially but gave my ex some considerations to what she desired by waiving part of the agreement. My sister thought it foolish to waive anything but at the end of the day giving up something I cannot take to the grave for a little peace was worth it.
> 
> Whoever is started the discussion seriously take these things into consideration. Short cuts are unwise but having a clause regarding separate property and how it will be maintained during marriage is a must.


Thanks SoS, do we need to disclose trust accounts (Schwab One® Trust Account) opened prior to marriage? Did your pre-nup include potential inheritance?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Its a defeatist attitude, at least in the US we have a lot of flexibility in financial/legal agreements. Its unfortunate that most people are unaware (or too late) and advise young men to not marry


I have never known anyone in real life advising anyone not to marry. As for marriage advise, there are so many important things to advise on that don't include hiding things from and being deceptive towards your spouse. The marriage would be built on shaky foundations before it's even started. 
Would almost certainly end in divorce because honesty and openness and trust are vital.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> To be fair, how often does a woman when getting divorced hear from her friends, family and lawyer to "take him for everything"? A LOT!


In my case it was my husband's solicitor who was like that. Mine was fair and I was fair and largely we agreed on things. No one advised me to 'take him for everything'. Maybe it depends on what sort of people you know and mix with.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> I don't think anyone here is hostile to prenups. They make sense in certain cases. But the OP's opening post is ridicules to the point of telling his male teenage relatives to plan to bury money on their property to hide it from some wife they might have some years down the road.


Well I guess I am hostile to prenups in that I don't agree with them and would never get one, but as you say this goes way way behind that by twisting teenagers minds to do things that are immoral and deceptive. Their future marriages are being put at risk but hopefully they will ignore such bad advise once they meet a decent lady.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> No. Even with shared custody if there is a huge discrepancy in earnings, there will be some child support. As there should be. Let's say a woman stayed out of the workforce to take care of the children and home for 15 years while her spouse was able to fully focus on his job. Then he decides to divorce her. They share custody, but he's earning 200k a year, she can pull in minimum wage. She should get some child support.


The amount has gone down massively over the past 5 years, specially if woman makes above $5K/month. It also depends on the parenting plan with big reductions if child stays with Dad most of the time. Even with 7-8 times higher pay for Dad, it works to a few 100 dollars per child (if Dad pays health insurance, some portion of childcare etc.). Also assets are not considered for CS, only income from one full time job (even this excludes one time bonuses)


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I have never known anyone in real life advising anyone not to marry. As for marriage advise, there are so many important things to advise on that don't include hiding things from and being deceptive towards your spouse. The marriage would be built on shaky foundations before it's even started.
> Would almost certainly end in divorce because honesty and openness and trust are vital.


If a husband contributes 100% of household expenses, looks after kids education and upbringing, loves his wife and then tells her he is not interested in how much she makes or spends and would like some privacy with his remaining income and assets. Would you call that lack of honesty or a devoted spouse asking for privacy? Also if he told her he is worried about unfair asset split during divorce, given that women turn very emotional and do incredibly hurtful things during separation, should she not calm him down by agreeing to privacy?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> If a husband contributes 100% of household expenses, looks after kids education and upbringing, loves his wife and then tells her he is not interested in how much she makes or spends and would like some privacy with his remaining income and assets. Would you call that lack of honesty or a devoted spouse asking for privacy? Also if he told her he is worried about unfair asset split during divorce, given that women turn very emotional and do incredibly hurtful things during separation, should she not calm him down by agreeing to privacy?


Yea, and men are always so wonderful and fair about splitting assets if the couple divorces. You know, men never get all emotional and very mean and unfair things during divorce.

Your view of women is just awful. I hope your teen relatives come to realize that your attitude and advice is counter productive to their future.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

EleGirl said:


> Yea, and men are always so wonder and fair about splitting assets if the couple divorces. You know, men never get all emotional and very mean and unfair things during divorce.
> 
> Your view of women is just awful. I hope your teen relatives come to realize that your attitude and advice is counter productive to their future.


Can you and TM get off this thread, I can understand that pre-nups, post-nups, hiding the 'gold' advice can be distressing to gold diggers as they don't know where to dig!
Unfortunately this is going to be the future, simple pre-post nup forms are available online and can be signed and notarized for free. Financial companies like Schwab are aggressively marketing estate planning tools like trusts and offering digital investment options.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> Can you and TM get off this thread,


No, I will not get off this thread. This is an open forum and anyone an post on any thread. TM is also free to post where ever she wishs.



pk1at said:


> I can understand that pre-nups, post-nups, hiding the 'gold' advice can be distressing to gold diggers as they don't know where to dig!


Are you calling me a gold digger? I'm definitely not a gold digger. I've always earned more than my husbands. I put the first one through medical school (costing me $100,000's) and got the short end of the stick in the divorce. My second husband decided to stop working after just a few years of marriage without my agreement and I supported him and his children for years until they graduated from high school.

As I said in an earlier post, all of the women I know who divorced earned as much or more than their husbands and none of them got any more their half of the marital assets which they contributed to equally in the divorce.

This comment of yours shows the attitude of yours that I'm talking about... assuming that I'm a gold digger because I'm a woman. I believe that TM also earns as much or more than her husband and from what I know of her she's not a gold digger, not by a long shot.



pk1at said:


> Unfortunately this is going to be the future, simple pre-post nup forms are available online and can be signed and notarized for free. Financial companies like Schwab are aggressively marketing estate planning tools like trusts and offering digital investment options.


I come from a very large family, so I have a lot of nieces and nephews in their 20's and early 30's. They are almost all married with children. They and their spouse all work with both of them earning about the same amount. They all have children. None of them have felt a need for pre & post nups.

If a person feels that they need a pre or post nup, then they can get one. Their choice. It's the attitude that all women are evil gold-diggers and men should hide assets in the holes in their yard that is ridiculous.

By the way, TAM does not allow misogyny/misandry. You are stepping over the line. You might want to read the forum rules.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> If a husband contributes 100% of household expenses, looks after kids education and upbringing, loves his wife and then tells her he is not interested in how much she makes or spends and would like some privacy with his remaining income and assets. Would you call that lack of honesty or a devoted spouse asking for privacy? Also if he told her he is worried about unfair asset split during divorce, given that women turn very emotional and do incredibly hurtful things during separation, should she not calm him down by agreeing to privacy?


I would call that being secretive and not acting like a married man should with his wife.
Oh and many woman aren't as your describe.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> No, I will not get off this thread. This is an open forum and anyone an post on any thread. TM is also free to post where ever she wishs.
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a gold digger? I'm definitely not a gold digger. I've always earned more than my husbands. I put the first one through medical school (costing me $100,000's) and got the short end of the stick in the divorce. My second husband decided to stop working after just a few years of marriage without my agreement and I supported him and his children for years until they graduated from high school.
> ...


I am the same. All my nieces and nephews, our children, friends children, other young people we know, nearly all married with not a prenup in sight. They love and respect each other and are honest with each other. I also dont know a single woman who married for money, not one.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> If a husband contributes 100% of household expenses, looks after kids education and upbringing, loves his wife and then tells her he is not interested in how much she makes or spends and would like some privacy with his remaining income and assets. Would you call that lack of honesty or a devoted spouse asking for privacy? Also if he told her he is worried about unfair asset split during divorce, given that women turn very emotional and do incredibly hurtful things during separation, should she not calm him down by agreeing to privacy?


"Privacy"??

Not many sane, mentally and emotionally healthy women are going to sign up for a marriage and family/life partnership with a man who wants financial "privacy".

If he wants privacy, he doesn't need to get married. 

Why even get married? It doesn't make sense, why would a man this obsessed with hiding his money, like a dragon hiding and guarding his gold in a remote cave, get married?

Why?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

.... why?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Your view of women is just awful. I hope your teen relatives come to realize that your attitude and advice is counter productive to their future.


It comes down to this. Some woman broke the OP. Instead of being mature and strong enough to realize that all women are not THAT woman (which is hard, I have to remind myself that all men aren't my father all the time) he's allowed it to make him bitter and hateful. Not one bit of his question is about protecting assets. It's about hoarding money and making sure women and children get nothing. He's trying to figure out how to hide assets from the court so he doesn't have to support children. He's talking about burying money in the back yard and refusing to ever acquire any asset that might be considered marital property. 

Pre-nups are smart. If my H had had money when we married, I would have insisted on one to protect him. I don't even have an issue with post-nups, although if you're having those conversations then you may as well go ahead and divorce. I really hope these young men realize that he's just too weak to get over what happened to him and that viewing all women as evil is a sad, pathetic way to view the world. If they don't, I hope they stay single and NEVER have children. Those poor children, I know what it feels like when your father wishes you'd never been born. Imagine knowing that your father would do ANYTHING to keep from helping you have a safe and happy childhood if it's going to cost him a dime. Just, yikes.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Livvie said:


> "Privacy"??
> 
> Not many sane, mentally and emotionally healthy women are going to sign up for a marriage and family/life partnership with a man who wants financial "privacy".
> 
> ...


On the flip side, why would a woman feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married? Sounds mercenary to me.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> On the flip side, why would a woman feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married? Sounds mercenary to me.


It sounds mercenary to me too. I know a LOT of women who married men they don't love because he has family money. There is a word for a woman who trades sex for money. It is not a nice word. 
What is funny is that one of them did that, and over the course of the first years of marriage, she changed. He was over the moon for her, and still is, but he is such a nice, good man and turned out to be such an amazing husband and father, even though he's not as empirically attractive as she is, she is WILD for him. She loves him so much and is so grateful that she lucked into such a good man. They're really sweet because he loves her too. They will be that sweet old couple holding hands in the park.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It sounds mercenary to me too. I know a LOT of women who married men they don't love because he has family money. There is a word for a woman who trades sex for money. It is not a nice word.
> What is funny is that one of them did that, and over the course of the first years of marriage, she changed. He was over the moon for her, and still is, but he is such a nice, good man and turned out to be such an amazing husband and father, even though he's not as empirically attractive as she is, she is WILD for him. She loves him so much and is so grateful that she lucked into such a good man. They're really sweet because he loves her too. They will be that sweet old couple holding hands in the park.


That is a sweet success story but she better hope that he never finds out about those first few years though.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> That is a sweet success story but she better hope that he never finds out about those first few years though.


I think on some level he knew. He wasn’t with her for her sparkling personality: she’s like 5’7”, blonde with blue eyes, was a college cheerleader and is still a size 4 after two kids. His reasons were as shallow as hers.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I think on some level he knew. He wasn’t with her for her sparkling personality: she’s like 5’7”, blonde with blue eyes, was a college cheerleader and is still a size 4 after two kids. His reasons were as shallow as hers.


Sounds like they are a perfect match


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> On the flip side, why would a woman feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married? Sounds mercenary to me.


We consider all we had and have as ours. 'With all my worldy goods I thee endow '. 
I just can't understand why anyone who makes promises to each other in marriage would think otherwise, although I realise than on TAM Mr D and I aren't the norm at all.  We are more the norm generally in real life though in my experience.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Sounds like they are a perfect match


Yeah it worked out. It usually doesn't, but in this case it did. Marriages would be better if people married a PERSON instead of a resume.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It sounds mercenary to me too. I know a LOT of women who married men they don't love because he has family money. There is a word for a woman who trades sex for money. It is not a nice word.
> What is funny is that one of them did that, and over the course of the first years of marriage, she changed. He was over the moon for her, and still is, but he is such a nice, good man and turned out to be such an amazing husband and father, even though he's not as empirically attractive as she is, she is WILD for him. She loves him so much and is so grateful that she lucked into such a good man. They're really sweet because he loves her too. They will be that sweet old couple holding hands in the park.


The only few very well off couples I know weren't well off when they were married.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> We consider all we had and have as ours. 'With all my worldy goods I thee endow '.
> I just can't understand why anyone who makes promises to each other in marriage would think otherwise, although I realise than on TAM Mr D and I aren't the norm at all. We are more the norm generally in real life though in my experience.


But what I am failing to understand with your position is why does money affect love? Especially for women?
Just because I might fall in love with someone doesn't automatically follow that they will have access to assets that I worked my ass off to get BEFORE I even met them. Not only is that risky, it is just plain stupid. Yes, if I ever (and it's a big IF) end up with someone they will be taken care of but it's my kids who will benefit from my hard work.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Not sure the sons are going to find any woman who's going to marry them under these circumstances... it's like saying to them, sorry, I don't really trust you... please sign this disclaimer...  I would not ask to sign one, even if I were filthy rich. I just wouldn't get married.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> The only few very well off couples I know weren't well off when they were married.


When we met, my husband had just started a new career. He was commission only. I supported us the first 3 years we were together, and we were together for almost 6 before he started making more than me. Now he makes 3-4 times what I make.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Just until July 1st


If it's a check you have to write, then on the comment line of your last check should be "GFY"


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I had a really good wise solicitor. He said that who did what is irrelevant in how assets are distributed and who pays what to who. He said it's about children first, then making sure that each can afford to live and pay their bills.


Child support is about putting children first. A skank shouldn't be rewarded with money for herself(or his self). My ex wife wasn't going to get alimony come hell or high water. She tried. She failed.

I calculated all my child support and even though the custodial mother is financially responsible for her half of their needs, my support covered everything. Clothes, their portion of the grocery bill, their portion of the mortgage, property taxes, school expenses, utilities. Everything. 

She chose to not work when she got remarried and didn't use my support for them. She would have been able to pay her portion of the bills and have a few thousand left over from my child support every year to do with as she wishes had she gotten a job. So basically my support would have had my kids costing her absolutely nothing out of her own pocket, yet she chose to use it as her own personal income and deny my kids what they should have gotten and deserved.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It very much depends on who her friends are and why she is getting divorced. It’s important not to judge all women by a few bad ones. How often do men say “I want a stay at home wife and mother” and proceed to cheat constantly, because what is she gonna do, she has no money? A LOT!


I didn't want my X to be a SAHM. I wanted her to contribute to the household income. My mother was more than willing to babysit, so that would have been fortunate.

But oh boy, did she try to use that in negotiations with our lawyers. "I was a SAHM, so I didn't have the opportunity to make an income."

My lawyer's response based on his discussion with me: "Your client(x-skag) was a SAHM by HER choice. My client preferred that she worked, therefore he did not force her to be a SAHM. Also your client has a degree in business, of which my client paid for."

Alimony dropped, but they tried to say they'd drop it in exchange for more of the assets. My lawyer's response: "No."


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

EleGirl said:


> Yea, and men are always so wonderful and fair about splitting assets if the couple divorces. You know, men never get all emotional and very mean and unfair things during divorce.
> 
> Your view of women is just awful. I hope your teen relatives come to realize that your attitude and advice is counter productive to their future.


Agreed. Men are just as ruthless when it comes to those things. Hiding assets, trying to undervalue retirement accounts, playing dirty.

I'll admit, I played dirty. But it was only after I was amicable to being fair....then her lawyer's first draft of demands came in. Basically asked for everything leaving me to go out and start over. I freaked and told my lawyer to simply do what he has to do that I'll go in debt before I pay her a dime of alimony.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> On the flip side, why would a woman feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married? Sounds mercenary to me.


OP wasn't discussing pre marital assets.

He was saying DURING marriage earnings should be PRIVATE from his wife.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Livvie said:


> OP wasn't discussing pre marital assets.
> 
> He was saying DURING marriage earnings should be PRIVATE from his wife.


Diana was talking about ALL assets regardless of before or after marriage


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Diana was talking about ALL assets regardless of before or after marriage


But you quoted ME. And _I_ was talking about OP saying POST MARITAL assets should be kept "private" from a spouse.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Livvie said:


> But you quoted ME. And _I_ was talking about OP saying POST MARITAL assets should be kept "private" from a spouse.


Sorry, my bad. That was supposed to be to Diana not you.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

10 pages of rants about why its not OK to hide assets or don't marry if you don't want to share assets, can we move on to topic of thread, namely how do we separate assets before and during a marriage. I have heard two good suggestions so far 1) Prenup/Postnup 2) Create a trust before marriage. Any other ideas, ex. a huge loan from parents prior to, having assets in another country etc.?


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Pre nups soaring in popularity, specially with younger generation


https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/177-Prenups-1.jpg


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> On the flip side, why would a woman feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married? Sounds mercenary to me.


No one here is suggesting that any woman should feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married.

In most, if not all, states assets owned prior to marriage are separate assets. So are inheritances. Pre-marriage debts are also separate debts. The person who has separate assets needs to make sure that they are not mingled with marital assets.

(ETA: just re-read some posts. I guess Diane was saying this and you quoted the wrong post. That's apparently how Diane & her husband prefer it in their marriage. Their choice.)


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

EleGirl said:


> No one here is suggesting that any woman should feel that she has the right to any assets that a man had before they got married.
> 
> In most, if not all, states assets owned prior to marriage are separate assets. So are inheritances. Pre-marriage debts are also separate debts. The person who has separate assets needs to make sure that they are not mingled with marital assets.
> 
> (ETA: just re-read some posts. I guess Diane was saying this and you quoted the wrong post. That's apparently how Diane & her husband prefer it in their marriage. Their choice.)


Yeah. Somehow I quoted Livvie. Don't know how that happened


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

There is also a generational shift going on with younger couples preferring separate finances. The law will eventually catch up to this shift (similar to what happened with same sex marriages)








Why More Young Married Couples Are Keeping Separate Bank Accounts


It doesn’t signal a lack of trust—to some, it’s a way for spouses to show they trust each other more.




www.theatlantic.com


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> There is also a generational shift going on with younger couples preferring separate finances. The law will eventually catch up to this shift (similar to what happened with same sex marriages)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The issue isn't during the marriage. It's during the divorce. Divorce discovery requires you to disclose all assets, even separate accounts like the couples in your article. If the other side suspects you may be hiding something, they will engage forensic accountants. Being the high earner, chances are very good you're on the hook for both side's legal bills, including experts like accountants. Unless you are very, very wealthy you're going to find that the legal fees eat up any possible benefit your hidden asset may have for you.

Will the law eventually change? Maybe. But until then you have to work with the laws you have , not the laws you want. Stick with the prenups and don't try to hide anything. In fact, full disclosure during prenup creation will only make it more binding. If you hide something and it's later discovered, that prenup might be tissue paper when you try to use it.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> But what I am failing to understand with your position is why does money affect love? Especially for women?
> Just because I might fall in love with someone doesn't automatically follow that they will have access to assets that I worked my ass off to get BEFORE I even met them. Not only is that risky, it is just plain stupid. Yes, if I ever (and it's a big IF) end up with someone they will be taken care of but it's my kids who will benefit from my hard work.


That's is what you need to talk about before you marry.
If I don't trust the guy then it's best to stay single.
It's just how I see marriage as being I guess. I have always had joint accounts in both marriages. All money and income has always been joint whether earnings or inheritances.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> There is also a generational shift going on with younger couples preferring separate finances. The law will eventually catch up to this shift (similar to what happened with same sex marriages)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's really not the case in the many young couples we know who are married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

In Absentia said:


> Not sure the sons are going to find any woman who's going to marry them under these circumstances... it's like saying to them, sorry, I don't really trust you... please sign this disclaimer...  I would not ask to sign one, even if I were filthy rich. I just wouldn't get married.


Absolutely. I would run a mile from a man with that terrible attitude.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Will the law eventually change? Maybe. But until then you have to work with the laws you have , not the laws you want. Stick with the prenups and don't try to hide anything. In fact, full disclosure during prenup creation will only make it more binding. If you hide something and it's later discovered, that prenup might be tissue paper when you try to use it.


That's what I am trying to do here, 'work with the law'. However there are many options other than pre-nups I am trying to explore. One example, Dad buys a house and rents to Son and wife. Son pays rent for a few years and divorces. All rent payments are removed from marital property. Few years after divorce is final Dad gifts house to Son. This is perfectly legal in at least 20 states, in many cases judges don't want to hear about these legal transactions and your 'forensic accountants' can't do much


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> That's what I am trying to do here, 'work with the law'. However there are many options other than pre-nups I am trying to explore. One example, Dad buys a house and rents to Son and wife. Son pays rent for a few years and divorces. All rent payments are removed from marital property. Few years after divorce is final Dad gifts house to Son. This is perfectly legal in at least 20 states, in many cases judges don't want to hear about these legal transactions and your 'forensic accountants' can't do much


Sounds to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Plus is Dad happy paying income tax on the rent income?

edit: Also, Dad may find himself the target of depositions during the divorce proceedings concerning the disposition of that rental property. If the other side's lawyers or accountants are suspicious, he could face some pretty uncomfortable questions, including of the intention to use the home as a haven for the son's assets.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Sounds to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Plus is Dad happy paying income tax on the rent income?


The income tax is offset by mortgage deduction. The lawsuit will be thrown out in at least 20 states as all transactions are perfectly legal. Judges don't care if one partner blows away all the marital property. Only assets at time of divorce are considered


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Also, Dad may find himself the target of depositions during the divorce proceedings concerning the disposition of that rental property. If the other side's lawyers or accountants are suspicious, he could face some pretty uncomfortable questions, including of the intention to use the home as a haven for the son's assets.


Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)


Not every woman is going to go along with the. Maybe she wants to be a homeowner.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> The income tax is offset by mortgage deduction. The lawsuit will be thrown out in at least 20 states as all transactions are perfectly legal. Judges don't care if one partner blows away all the marital property. Only assets at time of divorce are considered


Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent. And the home is mortgaged, not fully owned by the Dad? Well that will complicate things when its time to gift it to the son.

And guess who's paying for all that investigation during divorce? You are. Let's say that the home is $240,000, with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% and 20% down. Your marriage lasts 5 years. Typical rent on a property like that is about $2k/month. That's $120k you paid to Dad in rent. In that 5 years, Dad paid $20k in principal and ~$46k in interest. The other $54k is Dad's income. How much of that are you expecting back? If Dad doesn't charge you fair market value rent, or puts that profit back into the house equity in an unusual way, that's going to raise a whole new set of questions for your ex's legal investigators. By trying to pull this stunt you could very well cost yourself $90k in legal/accounting fees during your divorce as they try to unspool any scheme you've put together. That's whether what you did was ultimately legal or not. That's during the divorce. 3 years later when Dad tries to transfer the home to son, and new legal troubles could arise. Especially if deposition testimony denied any such plans.

Look. You're looking for silver bullets that just aren't there. Prenups, and postnups with full disclosure are your best tools for avoiding a long litigious divorce.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> Dad can ignore and not even show up as he has not given anything to son till divorce. The couple (including wife) benefited by living in the house during Marriage. There is really no case here, except paying rent using marital assets (legal)


Dad can't dodge the deposition. Not without facing contempt himself.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent. And the home is mortgaged, not fully owned by the Dad? Well that will complicate things when its time to gift it to the son.
> 
> And guess who's paying for all that investigation during divorce? You are. Let's say that the home is $240,000, with a 30 year mortgage at 4.5% and 20% down. Your marriage lasts 5 years. Typical rent on a property like that is about $2k/month. That's $120k you paid to Dad in rent. In that 5 years, Dad paid $20k in principal and ~$46k in interest. The other $54k is Dad's income. How much of that are you expecting back? If Dad doesn't charge you fair market value rent, or puts that profit back into the house equity in an unusual way, that's going to raise a whole new set of questions for your ex's legal investigators. By trying to pull this stunt you could very well cost yourself $90k in legal/accounting fees during your divorce as they try to unspool any scheme you've put together. That's whether what you did was ultimately legal or not. That's during the divorce. 3 years later when Dad tries to transfer the home to son, and new legal troubles could arise. Especially if deposition testimony denied any such plans.
> 
> Look. You're looking for silver bullets that just aren't there. Prenups, and postnups with full disclosure are your best tools for avoiding a long litigious divorce.


I don't understand your logic here, the son is getting full and sole benefit of home price appreciation + equity AND he is removing $120K from marital property. The argument about deposition is not valid, you don't need to answer hypothetical questions like future gifts to children, nor do you need to abide by any disclosure you made years ago. There is really no case 3 years later. Its not a silver bullet, the law has vested full authority to either partner in the marriage to use marital assets as they see fit during a marriage


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Dad can't dodge the deposition. Not without facing contempt himself.


Like any other landlord, he is an un-related third party. As long as lease document is legal, there is no case here


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Yes, actually they do depending on the judge. Only assets at time of divorce unless there are assets being hidden/laundered through some scheme one party is not privy to. What you're describing is laundering the son's assets through a rental agreement with the parent.


Its not laundering, both parties are aware of rental agreement and have signed up for it. There is no scheme, the home is a future gift


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> I don't understand your logic here, the son is getting full and sole benefit of home price appreciation + equity AND he is removing $120K from marital property. The argument about deposition is not valid, you don't need to answer hypothetical questions like future gifts to children, nor do you need to abide by any disclosure you made years ago. There is really no case 3 years later. Its not a silver bullet, the law has vested full authority to either partner in the marriage to use marital assets as they see fit during a marriage


No. The son is a renter. The Dad is getting the full benefit of rental income, appreciation, and equity. The son is paying $120k in rent. To say that that is removing it from marital property isn't exactly true. Why? Because the full $120k no longer exists. $46k of it is lost to mortgage interest. $10k(ish) to property taxes. $4k to insurance. That's $60k right there, or half. Is your intent to safeguard your money, or is it just to spite your spouse? Of the remaining $60k, only $20k will be coming back to the son with the house in the form of the equity portion of the mortgage payments. The other $40k is either still part of Dad's estate, or lost to the IRS in Dad's income tax from rental income. So you're paying $120k to get back $20k, plus <$40k in some separate future transfer. Say 3 more years of gifts under $15k to stay under the tax exempt gift level. Is that better than the son having bought the house initially?

Now the gift transfer. Dad may have tax liability on that gift. Depending on the size of Dad's estate, it could affect future gift ability, or estate taxes upon Dad's death. As far as the equity, in general on a gift of this type the basis on home price for the son will be the price Dad paid and not the FMV of the property at the time of gift while the gift amount deducted from Dad's estate will be the current FMV of the property. Which means that that equity may cause the son to pay higher capital gains tax on its future sale. 

So in the end you are left with less than half of what you were shuffling off to Dad. Dad has probably lost money on the deal if he's returning the rental income. Son is probably on the hook for higher capital gains on the house.

And of course all of that is without taking into account the effect this type of move on the divorce itself. A contested divorce can be amazingly expensive. For a move like this to make any sense at all, your financial benefit has to outweigh the additional cost to litigate it in the divorce. You could very easily see yourself facing an $80k legal bill after the lawyers and accountants get done, all to "save" $60k. Is it still worth it? When instead of this scheme, you could have had a clear prenup and a less contentious and less expensive divorce?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

pk1at said:


> That's what I am trying to do here, 'work with the law'. However there are many options other than pre-nups I am trying to explore. One example, Dad buys a house and rents to Son and wife. Son pays rent for a few years and divorces. All rent payments are removed from marital property. Few years after divorce is final Dad gifts house to Son. This is perfectly legal in at least 20 states, in many cases judges don't want to hear about these legal transactions and your 'forensic accountants' can't do much


What if - horror of horrors I know - the son doesn't divorce? What if he decides NOT to cheat on his wife and they stay together? He just pays rent to his father for... ever?


----------



## SongoftheSouth (Apr 22, 2014)

In the US assets aquired prior to marriage remain yours (separate property) so long as you do not co mingle them Inheritence is yours so long as you do not co mingle them. Unfortunately often times people co mingle their assets and it can then become considered marital property but in general those two principles are true. As an example you inherit 100,000 dollars from your mom or dad upon their death while you are married. You put that money into a bank account or mutual fund in your name only and it is separate property. Dump it into a joint account with your spouses name and it could be considered marital property and subject to division upon divorce. 
For most people a prenuprial agreement serves three purposes:
1) Defining clearly your assets (and liabilities) coming into marriage
2) Specifying separate property earned during marriage and how that will be handled in event of divorce
3) Setting a standard for spousal support
There are of course other considerations depending upon your circumstances but these are the important consideration for many people. 

Not really sure I understand your rental analogy but if a couple rents a home its a rental irregardless who it is being rented from. If the home is later gifted to a child after a divorce there is probably no issue there. Too many hypotheticals for me. Sorry I got involved in this!!


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What if - horror of horrors I know - the son doesn't divorce? What if he decides NOT to cheat on his wife and they stay together? He just pays rent to his father for... ever?


In a way, paying the father rent will likely come back to him if his father passes on.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

jonty30 said:


> In a way, paying the father rent will likely come back to him if his father passes on.


Wouldn't it be better to just never marry? Since women are the root of all evil.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Wouldn't it be better to just never marry? Since women are the root of all evil.


Rent or buy is about the same. 
Men pay and pay.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

jonty30 said:


> Rent or buy is about the same.
> Men pay and pay.


That's what I've been saying! They can just hire housekeepers and hookers. You guys don't feel any emotional connection to women anyway, why establish a financial connection to them?


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> That's what I've been saying! They can just hire housekeepers and hookers. You guys don't feel any emotional connection to women anyway, why establish a financial connection to them?


None of us have said that, but your position is that, unless men are supplicants they hate women.
There really is nothing to discuss if that's your position.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

jonty30 said:


> None of us have said that, but your position is that, unless men are supplicants they hate women.
> There really is nothing to discuss if that's your position.


I've never said that, so you made that "position" up in your head. 

You however have said straight out that women should be supplicants. But that isn't what this thread is about, it's weirdly about marrying women you hate and then lying about your money so WHEN you divorce them you can keep from having to pay child support.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I've never said that, so you made that "position" up in your head.
> 
> You however have said straight out that women should be supplicants. But that isn't what this thread is about, it's weirdly about marrying women you hate and then lying about your money so WHEN you divorce them you can keep from having to pay child support.


You just did. 
All I said was that him paying rent will come back to him should his father pass on. 
You treated my simple statement as if I was saying that it was only for him. 
Did you want me to write my answers in multi-paragraph form, with all kinds of sub-paragraphs and annotations and sub-points to cover all possible points that you might object to?

I can't help that you're believe that men want women in birth camps, only to give birth to children.
I'm not the only one here concerned about your mental health.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

jonty30 said:


> You just did.


Yeah, this didn't happen. But keep telling yourself it's MY mental health that is a "concern" for you. And these unnamed others. 😂


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yeah, this didn't happen. But keep telling yourself it's MY mental health that is a "concern" for you. And these unnamed others. 😂


I'm not the only one noticing what you are saying is beyond the rationale.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

jonty30 said:


> I'm not the only one noticing what you are saying is beyond the rationale.


I see. So all the other posters who are saying this guy burying money in the yard to hide it from the judge so it won't be considered for child support, are they also saying what I'm saying is beyond rationale? All the other posters, 10 pages of it, agreeing that this person is taking the notion of a pre-nup, something I wholly support, beyond what is legal and is openly advocating for hiding assets in anticipation of what he sees as an inevitable divorce, ALL those other people who agree with me, they're saying that too? Tell me, are they in the room with you right now?

Quote EXACTLY what I said that is "beyond rationale." Or stop it.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I see. So all the other posters who are saying this guy burying money in the yard to hide it from the judge so it won't be considered for child support, are they also saying what I'm saying is beyond rationale? All the other posters, 10 pages of it, agreeing that this person is taking the notion of a pre-nup, something I wholly support, beyond what is legal and is openly advocating for hiding assets in anticipation of what he sees as an inevitable divorce, ALL those other people who agree with me, they're saying that too? Tell me, are they in the room with you right now?
> 
> Quote EXACTLY what I said that is "beyond rationale." Or stop it.


I'm speaking in general. 
If this guy is committing acts of fraud to hide assets for a divorce, the judge will come down hard on him. 
Nothing wrong with a pre-nup for either party, as somebody coming late to the relationship has no claim on previously obtained assets.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

jonty30 said:


> I'm speaking in general.
> If this guy is committing acts of fraud to hide assets for a divorce, the judge will come down hard on him.
> Nothing wrong with a pre-nup for either party, as somebody coming late to the relationship has no claim on previously obtained assets.


Yea, seperate assets and debt is seperate by law. 

The OP is talking about a man hiding income earned during the marriage from his wife and shifting marital assets/income to himself and/or his parents. I wonder if the OP is ok with a woman doing all the things that he thinks men should do.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> No. The son is a renter. The Dad is getting the full benefit of rental income, appreciation, and equity. The son is paying $120k in rent. To say that that is removing it from marital property isn't exactly true. Why? Because the full $120k no longer exists. $46k of it is lost to mortgage interest. $10k(ish) to property taxes. $4k to insurance. That's $60k right there, or half. Is your intent to safeguard your money, or is it just to spite your spouse? Of the remaining $60k, only $20k will be coming back to the son with the house in the form of the equity portion of the mortgage payments. The other $40k is either still part of Dad's estate, or lost to the IRS in Dad's income tax from rental income. So you're paying $120k to get back $20k, plus <$40k in some separate future transfer. Say 3 more years of gifts under $15k to stay under the tax exempt gift level. Is that better than the son having bought the house initially?
> 
> Now the gift transfer. Dad may have tax liability on that gift. Depending on the size of Dad's estate, it could affect future gift ability, or estate taxes upon Dad's death. As far as the equity, in general on a gift of this type the basis on home price for the son will be the price Dad paid and not the FMV of the property at the time of gift while the gift amount deducted from Dad's estate will be the current FMV of the property. Which means that that equity may cause the son to pay higher capital gains tax on its future sale.
> 
> ...


This transaction is in addition to a prenup and postnup. Its a CLEAN, LEGAL way to remove marital assets in case of future dispute. The wife is aware of the rental agreement, who owns the property and is consenting to pay at market rate with marital assets for joint use. I would love to see the other side waste money on legal fees here.

The rest of your financial numbers are really investment in rental market calculations and gift/estate tax issues. These will be there no matter who rents the property


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I think we should stop feeding the *_* in this thread.

He's just going on and on about different ways to hide and divert marital income from a spouse.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

EleGirl said:


> Yea, seperate assets and debt is seperate by law.
> 
> The OP is talking about a man hiding income earned during the marriage from his wife and shifting marital assets/income to himself and/or his parents. I wonder if the OP is ok with a woman doing all the things that he thinks men should do.


No,if we had 'girls' in our family instead of boys advice would be a little different, it would go something like this

1) Focus first on education and career to close 20% pay gap with men
2) Be very selective when choosing to marry, be receptive to people of different backgrounds and ideas but reject anyone suspicious
3) Sign pre-nup with proper legal advice, periodically sign post-nups
4) In general do not pay for household expenses or children's education as its the man's job, 100% of what you earn should go to your legally separated account
5) Never agree to stay at home, with or without children and never compromise on your career
6) Focus on saving and invest in fixed assets, these are needed in case of divorce as you may have primary custody of children


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

jonty30 said:


> I'm speaking in general.
> If this guy is committing acts of fraud to hide assets for a divorce, the judge will come down hard on him.


Where is the fraud in any of my suggestions? If both partners agree to give some marital assets to husband's family members or if one partner agrees to give marital assets exclusively to the other, its all valid and legal and these assets will not be considered during divorce.


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Where is the fraud in any of my suggestions? If both partners agree to give some marital assets to husband's family members or if one partner agrees to give marital assets exclusively to the other, its all valid and legal and these assets will not be considered during divorce.


Everything should be on paper, so an equitable division can be made.
If you didn't do a pre-nup before you got married, that's the penalty of not being well prepared.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

pk1at said:


> This transaction is in addition to a prenup and postnup. Its a CLEAN, LEGAL way to remove marital assets in case of future dispute. The wife is aware of the rental agreement, who owns the property and is consenting to pay at market rate with marital assets for joint use. I would love to see the other side waste money on legal fees here.
> 
> The rest of your financial numbers are really investment in rental market calculations and gift/estate tax issues. These will be there no matter who rents the property


The point is you aren't saving anything. The money is just gone. You're better off just buying the house in the first place, and including a clause about the house in the prenup. It is CLEANER, and cheaper in the divorce.

If you are somehow saving money then you run afoul of hiding assets with a third party. Which is no-no in almost all jurisdictions. Whether you win on the issue or not isn't really important. It's the legal bills that pile up as you defend it.

I don't think you would really "love to see the other side waste money on legal fees" here. Why? Because you'll have legal bill piling up defending it. Also as the wealthier party, you're on the hook for paying those fees. Or they come out of the marital estate so at best you're only paying half of those fees. Contested divorces where one party suspects the other of hiding assets can grow into six figure bills.

So again I ask, is your goal to have the best financial outcome in your divorce? Or is it to spite the other party? Because running the numbers, it seems like you're more keen on cutting off your nose to spite your face on this one.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> The point is you aren't saving anything. The money is just gone. You're better off just buying the house in the first place, and including a clause about the house in the prenup. It is CLEANER, and cheaper in the divorce.
> 
> If you are somehow saving money then you run afoul of hiding assets with a third party. Which is no-no in almost all jurisdictions. Whether you win on the issue or not isn't really important. It's the legal bills that pile up as you defend it.
> 
> ...


I see your point on pre-nup being cheaper, I am trying to explore other options here. I believe each option has its pros and cons


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

jonty30 said:


> Everything should be on paper, so an equitable division can be made.
> If you didn't do a pre-nup before you got married, that's the penalty of not being well prepared.


Looking at options to prepare, what can we do in addition to pre-nup


----------



## jonty30 (Oct 23, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Looking at options to prepare, what can we do in addition to pre-nup


In my opinion, the common expenses should have a common bank account that gets withdrawn from that you guys don't think about beyond ensuring that there is enough money in that account to handle your common expenses.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Another effective, cost free way is to sign inter-spousal transfer deeds periodically during the marriage


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> No,if we had 'girls' in our family instead of boys advice would be a little different, it would go something like this
> 
> 1) Focus first on education and career to close 20% pay gap with men
> 2) Be very selective when choosing to marry, be receptive to people of different backgrounds and ideas but reject anyone suspicious
> ...


7) don't marry a man whose assets and money are more important than you.
8) don't marry a man who talks about divorce before you have even married him. 
9) don't marry a guy who is deceptive about income and money generally.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Summarizing learning's over the last 2 weeks (Thanks to TAM members who contributed in various threads), first lets revisit steps given on the first post to check validity of steps one needs to take to be financially separate after marriage, then listing out three critical steps needed

1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US); Update: Not relevant, most states are the same when it comes to asset split
2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her (or man who can feed himself); Update: True both partners need to have an income, best way to take alimony off the table
3) Sign a well vetted prenup with presence of attorney; Update: CRITICAL
4) Do not buy a house, it is considered community property in most states, always rent and always pay portion of rent; Update: Good practice though steps explained later can provide protection
5) Always use separate bank/financial institutions to deposit any and every form of earning, ask wife to sign assignment of interest form from financial institution: Update: Good practice, not needed with pre-nup but reduces disputes
6) File taxes as married filing separately (is this needed? Yes): Update: Good practice
7) Regularly sign postnups after marriage (redundant step): Update: Not needed
8) Banks/financial institutions in your name should only have month or two of expenses, any and every investment $ to be invested through a gift to your parents or a trust (if you have the $$$$); Update : Not needed
9) Periodically sign inter-spousal transfer deeds with clear transmutation clause; Update: This is one of the three critical steps needed
10) Any remaining assets to be in non traceable form ex. gold, crypto, buried cash etc. Update: Use irrevocable trust to remove gifts and assets before marriage

NOW for the three critical steps needed to keep assets separate after marriage (Bookmark this, you will not find it anywhere else and moderator will likely remove, as it may bankrupt the divorce industry)

1) Prior to marriage,ask a family member, typically a parent to make you the beneficiary of an irrevocable trust. Put any and every asset you have acquired prior to marriage in the trust. All gifts and inheritance go into the trust. The trust should not pay you during marriage. By definition, a trust is not owned by you, so all assets including any asset appreciation are out of marital property by definition. You do not need to disclose a trust in the pre-nup or any time during divorce (unless asked to by the other party), this is equivalent to burying your money. You should have ZERO assets after this step, now you are ready to get married!!

2) Sign a simple pre-nup or post-nup: It should be simple, state that account 1 is separate property irrespective of funding source, account 2 is joint account to be used for household expenses, get it signed with legal representation from the other side. Do not include marital residence in pre-nup, include destitution clause (saying if divorce leaves one partner destitute, small amount like $10K to be given). Always include alimony waiver

3) For any large asset acquired using marital property (including primary residence) you wish to keep separate, ask spouse to sign inter-spousal transfer deed ( ISTD with a transmutation clause). A transmutation changes community property to separate property. One caveat, ISTD's come with the presumption that negatively impacted party was coerced into signing. So, its important to have language showing consent as well as understanding of impact.Always record ISTD's

All three steps are needed, if done properly there will not be any dispute.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> Summarizing learning's over the last 2 weeks (Thanks to TAM members who contributed in various threads), first lets revisit steps given on the first post to check validity of steps one needs to take to be financially separate after marriage, then listing out three critical steps needed
> 
> 1) Reside in a non-community property state (if in the US); Update: Not relevant, most states are the same when it comes to asset split
> 2) Always marry a woman who has a job that can feed her (or man who can feed himself); Update: True both partners need to have an income, best way to take alimony off the table
> ...


This is just gross.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Livvie said:


> This is just gross.


It is also nonsense. Any potential spouse that is presented with this should just run as fast as they can.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

I've refrained from commenting because I had nothing good to say and still don't. However...this poster reminds me of that game young women play... Marry, f*uck, kill. In this case, replace kill with "avoid like the plague". 

Please advise anyone who will listen to you to buy a sex robot and stay away from real girls.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is also nonsense. Any potential spouse that is presented with this should just run as fast as they can.


Its providing options to keep government out of marriage. Its a libertarian concept which most people will not understand People have been enslaved into thinking that marriage means financial commitment and nothing else.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

TXTrini said:


> I've refrained from commenting because I had nothing good to say and still don't. However...this poster reminds me of that game young women play... Marry, f*uck, kill. In this case, replace kill with "avoid like the plague".
> 
> Please advise anyone who will listen to you to buy a sex robot and stay away from real girls.


You remind me of gold digger that says 'dig dig dig'


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

pk1at said:


> You remind me of gold digger that says 'dig dig dig'


Do you have children? Cause I'm amazed anyone wanted to bump uglies with you.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is also nonsense. Any potential spouse that is presented with this should just run as fast as they can.


Absolutely and the good and honest ones who want openness and honestly in their marriage and to be rated above the guys money and assets would run fast. 

I have no issues with op living that way because his money and assets are the most important things in his life, but telling teenagers to go into relationships and marriage with a massive list of do's and don'ts is almost guaranteeing that they will never get married or have a great wife.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> You remind me of gold digger that says 'dig dig dig'


Nonsense. You are obsessed with the fact that women are gold diggers. It's just nonsense. I don't know a single woman who married for money.
There may be some in certain circles, but it's not at all common.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Its providing options to keep government out of marriage. Its a libertarian concept which most people will not understand People have been enslaved into thinking that marriage means financial commitment and nothing else.


Nope don't know anyone who thinks that. It's full commitment which includes finances. If money is more important than your family then I feel sorry for you, but please don't ruin young men's lives by telling them this nonsense. Unless you want them to be miserable and lonely. Hopefully some of them will think for themselves and go against this appalling advise. Hopefully they will meet the right lady and will realise she comes first.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Nonsense. You are obsessed with the fact that women are gold diggers. It's just nonsense. I don't know a single woman who married for money.
> There may be some in certain circles, but it's not at all common.


He attracts gold diggers because he only values women for looks and youth. He buys women and then complains he has to pay for them. 🙄


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> Absolutely and the good and honest ones who want openness and honestly in their marriage and to be rated above the guys money and assets would run fast.
> 
> I have no issues with op living that way because his money and assets are the most important things in his life, but telling teenagers to go into relationships and marriage with a massive list of do's and don'ts is almost guaranteeing that they will never get married or have a great wife.


He reeks of the stench of bitterness so I imagine the only women that would brave his natural defenses would be golddiggers 

They say when you marry for money, you earn every penny. I imagine it would be really hard work to spend days with someone so negative about women.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TXTrini said:


> He reeks of the stench of bitterness so I imagine the only women that would brave his natural defenses would be golddiggers
> 
> They say when you marry for money, you earn every penny. I imagine it would be really hard work to spend days with someone so negative about women.


It's just sad that his fears and obsessions are being passed on. At least he is trying to pass them on. Hopefully the teens will be different. Telling your children that women are all gold diggers will not help then find a decent lady.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its providing options to keep government out of marriage. Its a libertarian concept which most people will not understand People have been enslaved into thinking that marriage means financial commitment and nothing else.


You aren't keeping government out of marriage. You are just adding more lawyers into the mix. If the marriage ends everything will still be decided by the government's judges.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You aren't keeping government out of marriage. You are just adding more lawyers into the mix. If the marriage ends everything will still be decided by the government's judges.


If the three steps are taken correctly, the divorce will likely be uncontested. Even if it goes to judges, they are bound (hopefully) to follow the law on trusts and ISD. The steps I have outlined also block the common reasons why pre-nups are thrown out (assets not disclosed fully, parties did not understand implication of agreement etc.)


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Only a fool would partner up under those financial circumstances. 

Why even get married?

You have never answered that.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Nonsense. You are obsessed with the fact that women are gold diggers. It's just nonsense. I don't know a single woman who married for money.
> There may be some in certain circles, but it's not at all common.


Its extremely common, go to any divorce hearing and see what the higher earner (usually the man) says. As disputes over child support have gone down, fighting over assets is the #1 dispute. Women may not think they are gold diggers but the system by promising them half of the marital assets ( without consideration to who earned) makes them feel entitled and this is compounded by attorneys going for maximum.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> Only a fool would partner up under those financial circumstances.
> 
> Why even get married?
> 
> You have never answered that.


Its very difficult for idiots to understand that marriage should have nothing to do with money or material possessions.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

pk1at said:


> Its very difficult for idiots to understand that marriage should have nothing to do with money or material possessions.


I don't think those people are the ones who are the idiot. 

Haaaaaaaa!


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Its extremely common, go to any divorce hearing and see what the higher earner (usually the man) says. As disputes over child support have gone down, fighting over assets is the #1 dispute. Women may not think they are gold diggers but the system by promising them half of the marital assets ( without consideration to who earned) makes them feel entitled and this is compounded by attorneys going for maximum.


I guess this is the crux of our different point of view. I feel that marriage makes two people into one entity, a fully bonded team. To me that means everything earned and acquired during the marriage belongs to the marriage.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

pk1at said:


> Its very difficult for idiots to understand that marriage should have nothing to do with money or material possessions.


I think what you're trying to say is you wish divorce had nothing to do with money or material possessions.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Its extremely common, go to any divorce hearing and see what the higher earner (usually the man) says. As disputes over child support have gone down, fighting over assets is the #1 dispute. Women may not think they are gold diggers but the system by promising them half of the marital assets ( without consideration to who earned) makes them feel entitled and this is compounded by attorneys going for maximum.


If the marriage was long and one parent was the one who cared for the children then of course they should have half each.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Its very difficult for idiots to understand that marriage should have nothing to do with money or material possessions.


Good grief. So you would be ok if one parent was left with nothing and the other everything? The mother with small children had no home? You are very cruel and unfeeling.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Its extremely common, go to any divorce hearing and see what the higher earner (usually the man) says. As disputes over child support have gone down, fighting over assets is the #1 dispute. Women may not think they are gold diggers but the system by promising them half of the marital assets ( without consideration to who earned) makes them feel entitled and this is compounded by attorneys going for maximum.


I am previously divorced as was my husband As were many people in my family. 
However none of us are greedy or fearful about money or assets. My ex and I split assets 50/50 despite the fact that the 3 children lived with me full time. Mr solicitor advised me to try and get a percentage if his workplace pension. I didn't. Felt it wasn't fair as we had split things half and half.
Mr D let his ex have their house despite the fact that she had never paid any of the mortgage. He is a good man. 
You see many of us don't act the way you do. We don't fear loosing money and assets like you do. 
It's not the be all of life.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I am previously divorced as was my husband As were many people in my family.
> However none of us are greedy or fearful about money or assets. My ex and I split assets 50/50 despite the fact that the 3 children lived with me full time. Mr solicitor advised me to try and get a percentage if his workplace pension. I didn't. Felt it wasn't fair as we had split things half and half.
> Mr D let his ex have their house despite the fact that she had never paid any of the mortgage. He is a good man.
> You see many of us don't act the way you do. We don't fear loosing money and assets like you do.
> It's not the be all of life.


Good for you if you don't fear losing money. Community I come from, your money is pretty much a part of your body, fiercely guarded and hoarded. Likewise with women in our community, their daddies and mummies have hoarded for their precious daughter. Kids inherit wealth from both parents. Given our traditional 0.3% divorce rate, this has not proven to be a problem, but where we live divorce rate is ~60%.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Good grief. So you would be ok if one parent was left with nothing and the other everything? The mother with small children had no home? You are very cruel and unfeeling.


Never happened so in our circle so far. No the children or the mother should not have to suffer, but we don't need the government trying to dictate or force that outcome


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Never happened so in our circle so far. No the children or the mother should not have to suffer, but we don't need the government trying to dictate or force that outcome


It's lucky women have someone to make sure they aren't taken advantage of. 

I feel for you. It must be awful to have money and assets as your priority. To have to go to such lengths to keep it all for yourself. 
The love of money is the root of all evil. Very wise words.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I guess this is the crux of our different point of view. I feel that marriage makes two people into one entity, a fully bonded team. To me that means everything earned and acquired during the marriage belongs to the marriage.


Very different concept of marriage in my community, a woman moves from parents family to husbands family (typically bringing some wealth with her). Now if things don't work out and she wants to go back to her parents, she is obviously entitled to what she earned + anything she bought with her, but why give her a portion of wealth from husband's family (which may include assets + parents, brothers, uncles etc.)


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Very different concept of marriage in my community, a woman moves from parents family to husbands family (typically bringing some wealth with her). Now if things don't work out and she wants to go back to her parents, she is obviously entitled to what she earned + anything she bought with her, but why give her a portion of wealth from husband's family (which may include assets + parents, brothers, uncles etc.)


If you don't mind me asking, are you from an ethnic/cultural background other than the typical European ancestry in the US?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> Good for you if you don't fear losing money. Community I come from, your money is pretty much a part of your body, fiercely guarded and hoarded. Likewise with women in our community, their daddies and mummies have hoarded for their precious daughter. Kids inherit wealth from both parents. Given our traditional 0.3% divorce rate, this has not proven to be a problem, but where we live divorce rate is ~60%.


What community are you from?


----------



## Sfort (Sep 28, 2019)

pk1at said:


> Any other tips from members here?


Don't get married. Prenups increase the chance of divorce, contrary to what some lawyers who draft them say. If you don't trust a person enough to combine your finances, you don't trust them enough to get married.

If you want a prenup, you don't want marriage.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> If you don't mind me asking, are you from an ethnic/cultural background other than the typical European ancestry in the US?


Tracing back, we came from somewhere in Eastern Europe at least 150 years ago. There are many communities here in western US which have similar concept of marriage. Also in the Middle East and South Asia, its the norm for a woman to marry and move to the husbands family home. Its not clear who in America decided marriage is one man - one woman joint finances from day of marriage. Its an awfully narrow definition


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Tracing back, we came from somewhere in Eastern Europe at least 150 years ago. There are many communities here in western US which have similar concept of marriage. Also in the Middle East and South Asia, its the norm for a woman to marry and move to the husbands family home. Its not clear who in America decided marriage is one man - one woman joint finances from day of marriage. Its an awfully narrow definition


You're circumstances are quite unusual. I don't think it is the wide spread norm that women marry and move in with the husband's family. I can't help but feel like you see women as a commodity of some sort, not really an equal. In fact it seems you see them as a sort of enemy that will steal your family wealth.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Tracing back, we came from somewhere in Eastern Europe at least 150 years ago. There are many communities here in western US which have similar concept of marriage. Also in the Middle East and South Asia, its the norm for a woman to marry and move to the husbands family home. Its not clear who in America decided marriage is one man - one woman joint finances from day of marriage. Its an awfully narrow definition


It's an awfully narrow definition not to share everything when we marry. It's supposed to be about two people becoming one with everything in common. 
Of being open and honest with each other. 
Plus leaving parents to be independent as a new family. 
Cutting off the apron strings and making our own way in the world.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You're circumstances are quite unusual. I don't think it is the wide spread norm that women marry and move in with the husband's family. I can't help but feel like you see women as a commodity of some sort, not really an equal. In fact it seems you see them as a sort of enemy that will steal your family wealth.


Lets see, that's the norm in the Middle East, South Asia, parts of East Asia, several communities in Eastern and Central Europe as well as some communities in America. We are talking about ~30% of the worlds population.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

pk1at said:


> Tracing back, we came from somewhere in Eastern Europe at least 150 years ago. There are many communities here in western US which have similar concept of marriage. Also in the Middle East and South Asia, its the norm for a woman to marry and move to the husbands family home. Its not clear who in America decided marriage is one man - one woman joint finances from day of marriage. Its an awfully narrow definition


Or, perhaps it's you who has the awfully narrow definition.

One man, one woman? Are you suggesting that polygamy is part of your idea of marriage?


----------



## No Longer Lonely Husband (Nov 3, 2015)

I can easily solve this. Don’t get married.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Lets see, that's the norm in the Middle East, South Asia, parts of East Asia, several communities in Eastern and Central Europe as well as some communities in America. We are talking about ~30% of the worlds population.


So because it is the norm in 30% of the world to treat women like a commodity to be exchanged between households we should all strive for that?

This isn't about marriage as much as it is about putting wealth and money above all else. That's really what you are doing IMO.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> So because it is the norm in 30% of the world to treat women like a commodity to be exchanged between households we should all strive for that?
> 
> This isn't about marriage as much as it is about putting wealth and money above all else. That's really what you are doing IMO.


Depends on what is most important, I guess.


----------



## Sfort (Sep 28, 2019)

Two people marry and share their bodies...the most intimate sharing that exists. But then you don't want to share your bank accounts. So your money is more important to you than your body. 

It's like the unmarried couple with kids when they're asked why they don't get married. The response is often, "He's not ready for commitment." SMH


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Sfort said:


> Two people marry and share their bodies...the most intimate sharing that exists. But then you don't want to share your bank accounts. So your money is more important to you than your body.
> 
> It's like the unmarried couple with kids when they're asked why they don't get married. The response is often, "He's not ready for commitment." SMH


Nowadays, sharing my bank account would be more intimate then sex. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Sfort (Sep 28, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Nowadays, sharing my bank account would be more intimate then sex. 🤣🤣🤣🤣


You're not alone. I can always make more money.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sfort said:


> Two people marry and share their bodies...the most intimate sharing that exists. But then you don't want to share your bank accounts. So your money is more important to you than your body.
> 
> It's like the unmarried couple with kids when they're asked why they don't get married. The response is often, "He's not ready for commitment." SMH


Huh? It is? You can hit a home run in one night, but your assets may have taken you a lifetime to develop.

So yeah, sharing your bank account takes much more than sharing your body. Don't blame fellas who want to take this route.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Sfort said:


> Two people marry and share their bodies...the most intimate sharing that exists. But then you don't want to share your bank accounts. So your money is more important to you than your body.
> 
> It's like the unmarried couple with kids when they're asked why they don't get married. The response is often, "He's not ready for commitment." SMH


Two people dating are sharing their bodies before they're sharing the dinner check.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> So because it is the norm in 30% of the world to treat women like a commodity to be exchanged between households we should all strive for that?
> 
> This isn't about marriage as much as it is about putting wealth and money above all else. That's really what you are doing IMO.


Same thing can be said about your narrow concept of marriage, try out different women in the market and throw them out if you don't like. Women on the other hand behave like loose gold diggers, sleeping around till they find a rich fool who will be emotionally blackmailed into sharing his wealth. To top it all off socialist, feminist, kangaroo courts that are stuck in 16th century catholic concept of 'community property'

Results are even worse, ~60% divorce rate (including cohabitation), < 2 fertility rate (less than 0.25 in San Francisco county white women) , 22% rate of clinical depression among white women, 80% of divorces initiated by women, > 40% of childbirths outside marriage, 30% children raised by single mom's etc. 

I will take India's 0.25% divorce rate or the 0.3% I measured in my community any day. The women are quite happy being treated as 'commodities' like you call them. Our 'commodities' have post graduate education and work in high paying jobs or have their own businesses and their parents are providing them more than enough 'wealth'. 
0% of our commodities call 911 to report spousal abuse, < 1% of children are born outside marriage, < 1% depression rate among commodities and life-long marriages are the norm among our 'commodities'


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

pk1at said:


> Same thing can be said about your narrow concept of marriage, try out different women in the market and throw them out if you don't like. *Women on the other hand behave like loose gold diggers, sleeping around till they find a rich fool who will be emotionally blackmailed into sharing his wealth*. To top it all off socialist, feminist, kangaroo courts that are stuck in 16th century catholic concept of 'community property'


Bold says it all about your view of women.


----------



## Sfort (Sep 28, 2019)

DownButNotOut said:


> Two people dating are sharing their bodies before they're sharing the dinner check.


Which is why I said, "So your money is more important to you than your body."


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

RandomDude said:


> Huh? It is? You can hit a home run in one night, but your assets may have taken you a lifetime to develop.
> 
> So yeah, sharing your bank account takes much more than sharing your body. Don't blame fellas who want to take this route.


Then they shouldnt get married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pk1at said:


> Same thing can be said about your narrow concept of marriage, try out different women in the market and throw them out if you don't like. Women on the other hand behave like loose gold diggers, sleeping around till they find a rich fool who will be emotionally blackmailed into sharing his wealth. To top it all off socialist, feminist, kangaroo courts that are stuck in 16th century catholic concept of 'community property'
> 
> Results are even worse, ~60% divorce rate (including cohabitation), < 2 fertility rate (less than 0.25 in San Francisco county white women) , 22% rate of clinical depression among white women, 80% of divorces initiated by women, > 40% of childbirths outside marriage, 30% children raised by single mom's etc.
> 
> ...


You clearly hardly know any women then. Your attitudes towards women are archaic. Your women often have very little choice but to stay in stray in often abusive marriages. They have little choice but to put up with bad treatment. 
You are typical of men in such cultures.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Then they shouldnt get married.


The assumption being that women getting married is a business transaction? Good to know


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> The assumption being that women getting married is a business transaction? Good to know


When we married we shared everything.


----------



## Tuscany (10 mo ago)

pk1at said:


> Lets see, that's the norm in the Middle East, South Asia, parts of East Asia, several communities in Eastern and Central Europe as well as some communities in America. We are talking about ~30% of the worlds population.


But, if I understand correctly, you live in the USA and your family came from somewhere in Eastern Europe 150 years ago. So you are basically a part of general American culture. 

Why do these young fellows even want to marry at all? It seems that having children would be off the table, because that would imply some form of support for the mothers, if they are expected to bear and possibly contribute to care of children - which would interfere with them "feeding themselves."


----------



## Tuscany (10 mo ago)

pk1at said:


> Our 'commodities' have post graduate education and work in high paying jobs or have their own businesses and their parents are providing them more than enough 'wealth'.
> 0% of our commodities call 911 to report spousal abuse, < 1% of children are born outside marriage, < 1% depression rate among commodities and life-long marriages are the norm among our 'commodities'


So the women's parents are providing them with wealth for their lifetimes, and they all have post graduate degrees, high paying jobs or own businesses (obviously not bearing and raising children) AND are not depressed. They also don't report spousal abuse.

Sounds like they are thriving beautifully in the absence of functional husbands.

You fellows just keep on burying your gold.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Sfort said:


> Which is why I said, "So your money is more important to you than your body."


Bodies have such little worth these days they are given freely to 2am "dtf" dm's in snapchat.

Family is more important than either. Money is valuable only insofar as it provides a stable home with all of the necessities for that family to grow and prosper. Money is also a legacy to the next generation. My body is only valuable in its ability to labor for the resources the family needs, to protect that family from the dangers in the world, and to sacrifice it if necessary for the family's future.

Family is above all. Money and Body are more important than those who would seek to break the family apart, and both should be protected for the family's sake from such an occurrence.


----------



## bobsmith (Oct 15, 2012)

I SO love this title!!!! and the 20 pages of replies with people losing their minds over it! Love to see this in the ladies section and switch the man for the woman and see how that goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

To recap, "What is his is hers! What is hers is hers!"


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

bobsmith said:


> I SO love this title!!!! and the 20 pages of replies with people losing their minds over it! Love to see this in the ladies section and switch the man for the woman and see how that goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> To recap, "What is his is hers! What is hers is hers!"


I dint see why the advise would be any different no matter which sex it was.


----------



## pk1at (7 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> You clearly hardly know any women then. Your attitudes towards women are archaic. Your women often have very little choice but to stay in stray in often abusive marriages. They have little choice but to put up with bad treatment.
> You are typical of men in such cultures.


Really?? Can you explain why 'our' people settled in the US for centuries see such a low divorce rate and close to zero spousal abuse complaints? Its condescending to think a post-grad educated woman in a corporate job cannot dial 911 or rent a single bedroom apartment and move out.


----------

