Does your spouse share your financial goals?

[sgeeeee]

Mostly. I'm frugal and she's stingy.

 

[2B]

What I've seen is that wifey will stay home with the kids (as mine did). As the youngest gets into middle school, mom isn't needed as much and could rejoin the workforce. She decides she likes the leisure time and fills her day with more enjoyable activities. As the kids continue to age, they need even less care and she's effectively ER'd. BarbaraAnne sums it up well for the wives of upper middle earning males.

I saw my DW turning into this. I would come home and endure discussions about how the curtains we've had for 3 years no longer match the sofa we've had for 2. She "knew" both needed to be replaced to make the room look "right." I encouraged her to "resume her career" and about 90% of household "angst" conversions went away. Expenses also dropped in many other areas.

I started a thread a few weeks ago called "What Women Want" that brought up my observations over Christmas of several other couples and their "suburbia-retired" wives. They have a great deal and don't want it to change by their husband actually retiring himself.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Mostly. I'm frugal and she's stingy.

I frequently have to explain the differences between frugal and cheap.

 

[haha]

There's no telling these guys to run, unfortunately.

If they are going to run, they had better run young. While child support sucks, if you have a good job it is nothing compared to a big assets loss when you divorce once you are established. And child support has an end point. Asset loss is the loss that keeps on losing.

IMO, the whole concept of marriage needs to be reworked. All marriages should be considered annual contracts, until children are born and those children are shown by DNA to belong to the husband. At that point the game changes. Prior to that, you can leave anytime by paying a fine to the one left behind.

American men are nuts and this included me. We gladly step into a yoke. What we are going to get is unclear, what we are going to give is subject to changing social trends and legally enforceable.

Much as I like kids and would love to have grandkids, if either of my sons had asked me what I thought about their plans in the family area, I would have said keep your own place and stay away from commitments. The rest has too much risk of being a walk down pain alley.

Ha

 

[bosco]

IMO, the whole concept of marriage needs to be reworked. All marriages should be considered annual contracts, until children are born and those children are shown by DNA to belong to the husband. At that point the game changes. Prior to that, you can leave anytime by paying a fine to the one left behind.

Although I won't say there aren't things about your ideas that are personally appealing, I will point out that the entire family law system is geared around the concept that, in the event that a single woman (or man, technically) ends up raising children, SOMEONE pays them child support. The system agressively holds the notion that they do not care who the biological father is. They advocate for the child, not the rights of the father or mother.

If male A is the biological father and is a veritable deadbeat, and male B lived with the mother (married or not), provided support (or might have, or could, or should have...) for the kid, and subsequently left, the legal system is all too happy to force B to pay child support.

Lots of luck getting this stuff based on DNA.

 

[Sheryl]

First husband was pretty good with saving and LBYM. Unfortunately he wasn't very good at contributing to the household income. <snip> -- he was trying to extend his college experience so he wouldn't have to endure the working world again (never mind that this put me in the position of carrying the entire load for nearly 7 years).

I could have written this. Except mine didn't even want to hike the PCT - he wanted to hang out in the local bar with all his "friends." It took me a really long time to realize he was NEVER going to get around to supporting himself, much less actually SAVING anything.

My current SO and I are AMAZINGLY compatible - especially in the financial area. (among others). The more we got to know each other the more we were saying, "Yeah, me too!" We have similar net worths and similar goals...although he was planning to FIRE for most of his life, it didn't really occurr to me until about 10 years ago. His plans were derailed by two incompatible wives, but are now back on track thanks to our combined assets (not comingled, just considered as a whole) and reduced expenses.

We still do well with balancing an enjoyment of the present with saving for the future, and tend to agree on most major expenses. I don't complain when he "needs" tools and he doesn't complain when I "need" books. We both "need" a vacation on a regular basis. We are in complete agreement on avoiding expensive houses, furnishings, cars, clothing, etc.

So to answer the OP - There is nothing more important than a compatible mate!

 

[2B]

I could have written this. Except mine didn't even want to hike the PCT - he wanted to hang out in the local bar with all his "friends." It took me a really long time to realize he was NEVER going to get around to supporting himself, much less actually SAVING anything.

My current SO and I are AMAZINGLY compatible - especially in the financial area. (among others). The more we got to know each other the more we were saying, "Yeah, me too!" We have similar net worths and similar goals...although he was planning to FIRE for most of his life, it didn't really occurr to me until about 10 years ago. His plans were derailed by two incompatible wives, but are now back on track thanks to our combined assets (not comingled, just considered as a whole) and reduced expenses.

We still do well with balancing an enjoyment of the present with saving for the future, and tend to agree on most major expenses. I don't complain when he "needs" tools and he doesn't complain when I "need" books. We both "need" a vacation on a regular basis. We are in complete agreement on avoiding expensive houses, furnishings, cars, clothing, etc.

So to answer the OP - There is nothing more important than a compatible mate!

I noticed a common thread. Second (or later) marriages seem to address the problems identified in the prior marriage(s). Unlike the military, fighting the last "war" seems to work out in marriage.

 

[savedapile]

this has been an interesting read -

first marriage for both of us of over 30 years (mere children when we were married by a justice). We had no idea what we were doing at first but since we both were raised poor and didn't want to be poor anymore we worked very hard. DH was a dedicated saver and once I saw how quickly money builds up I got on the bandwagon. We've had a lot of ups and downs like everyone.

I still say marry for love, the kind in your heart not in your pocketbook or in your reproductive organs.

 

[haha]

Although I won't say there aren't things about your ideas that are personally appealing, I will point out that the entire family law system is geared around the concept that, in the event that a single woman (or man, technically) ends up raising children, SOMEONE pays them child support. The system agressively holds the notion that they do not care who the biological father is. They advocate for the child, not the rights of the father or mother.

If male A is the biological father and is a veritable deadbeat, and male B lived with the mother (married or not), provided support (or might have, or could, or should have...) for the kid, and subsequently left, the legal system is all too happy to force B to pay child support.

Lots of luck getting this stuff based on DNA.

I'm quite aware of this. The Socialist Republic of Washington is in the forefront of this hypocritical travesty. Here's another one for those men who might be tempted to live with a woman in Washington, thinking that since they are not married the state will not be able to take over and impoverish them should they decide that they wish to move on. It's called "meretricious relationship", and it really sounds like fun.

Here's a link to an attorney who is soliciting this business.

http://www.theseattledivorceattorney.com/id10.html

Ha

 

[2B]

I'm quite aware of this. The Socialist Republic of Washington is in the forefront of this hypocritical travesty. Here's another one for those men who might be tempted to live with a woman in Washington, thinking that since they are not married the state will not be able to take over and impoverish them should they decide that they wish to move on. It's called "meretricious relationship", and it really sounds like fun.

Here's a link to an attorney who is soliciting this business.

http://www.theseattledivorceattorney.com/id10.html

Ha

I love it.

All the people that cohabit because they know they don't want to have children and/or want to avoid all of the legal entanglements should things fall apart now can never be sure. Obviously, the lawyers were losing out on all of the juicy divorce battles with our more "open relationship" society. "Meretricious relationships" can't help but generate a lengthy legal fight if either partner has any "personal" assets the other partner lusts after.

It sounds like should I ever be single again that I need a "pre-anything" agreement to be signed by a startled woman on our first meeting to cover any and all possible future situations.

 

[DangerMouse]

I am lucky that I am married to a wonderful man. He has worked hard over the years and never complains or demands anything (well not too much). He is not at all financially astute, but he is grateful that I have taken charge of this area as he says it makes it all worthwhile for him to know that his efforts have not been in vain and that our net worth is not $0 because of trips to the mall to buy "things". He was truly astounded last year when I told him we should be able to retire in 2008 as it had not even occurred to him that it would be possible.

I think our marriage works because we see it as being a partnership, with each of us contributing different skills.

 

[Khan]

My EX left partly because I was too frugal.

 

[haha]

It sounds like should I ever be single again that I need a "pre-anything" agreement to be signed by a startled woman on our first meeting to cover any and all possible future situations.

Hi, I'm Bob and I like you! You are one pretty woman, and smart too! But you should know that although I have been considerate and loving in past relationships, past performance does not necessarily predict future results.

I have not had a microbiological survey done on my G-U tract; although I am at present unaware of any unwholesome inhabitants, that might be an incomplete picture, or reflect unpredictable incubation periods or could change due to other entanglements yet to come. I may or may not be afflicted with Hansen's Disease. As you can see I am an older man, and I could do a "Nelson Rockefeller". On behalf of my estate, I expressly disclaim any liability from this possibility. Should I have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours, is is your responsibility to call 911.

Whatever I spend on you or give you as a gift is lovingly and perpetually bestowed on you. Anything else in none of your damn business.

Any use of words such as love, cherish, undying, etc. should be construed only as sex talk with no meaning beyond the business at hand.

My attitudes toward sore losers are derived from watching The Sopranos.

If any of the above troubles you, please leave the room immediately. Your continued presence indicates your acceptance of our usage contract.

Have nice day!

Ha

 

[sgeeeee]

My EX left partly because I was too frugal.

You saw it as frugal. EX probably saw it as cheap or stingy. Ask CFB about the difference. Then I'll correct him.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

"You see hon, frugal is all about getting your moneys worth...cheap is simply not spending money even when its advisable or beneficial to do so...now...'frugal' was buying you the Lexus you wanted as its very reliable and will hold good residual value...'cheap' would have been getting you a '98 Escort instead...which of course would lead to 'divorce', which is very expensive and quite undesirable...whether you're 'cheap' OR 'frugal'"

 

[bssc]

My wife and I are thrifty. We still clip coupons.

Of course, noting the conversations above, she is my second wife. And I had two live in girlfriends who I dumped because I saw their financial and other habits and decided that we were not compatible.

 

[bosco]

I'm quite aware of this. The Socialist Republic of Washington is in the forefront of this hypocritical travesty. Here's another one for those men who might be tempted to live with a woman in Washington, thinking that

this is not the only travesty. Section 90.3 (iirc) of the uniform child custody act provides for child support in some situations that I found a bit much.

One of the factors conributing to the demise of my first marriage was basic inequalities in many areas. One area was financial. As in I worked, she didn't. Now, I'm sure you are thinking--she stayed home and took care of the kids, did laundry, cleaned, etc. etc. Wrong. She volunteered at the radio station, took classes, hiked (sometimes with the kids, in fairness), read, did the occasional load of laundry without sorting whites from colored and dumped it in a pile in the middle of the living room floor for self-service sorting.

Anyway, the relationship ended, and although I am not the litigious type, I ended up having to use the legal system to maintain access to my kids. Ultimately, I had to threaten to have a guardian ad litum appointed (knowing full-well my ex hated social workers of any kind), and insisted on (and paid for) family counseling to get her to agree to a reasonable custody arrangement. I paid for a mediator, got a mediated settlement, she later claimed the mediator was "biased", so then I paid for both our lawyers.

I agreed to a 42% to 58% split (I don't need to say who got the 58%--let's say that my choice to have 5 years of engineering education versus her choice to get a biology degree (4 years) and teaching certificate (1 year) which was funded with wages I earned got me a -8% bonus in the net worth splitup so she could retool). After all, she sacrificed her career to support mine.....

After thinking about it quite a bit, I decided I would prefer that she get the 8% than a couple of lawyers get it. So....

50-50 custody. Guess what. Turns out I still owed child support, not only on the difference in our incomes, but on 1.5 times that difference. And, even though she quickly remarried, her hubby's income didn't count in the equation even though the rationale for said rule is so the standard of living isn't noticeably lower in one domicile than the other.

Frankly, I think if the standard of living is a bit lower in one domicile, it might be an educational opportunity for the kids. However, ultimately, my ex and I learned to coparent (we even got past my having to threaten legal action to allow me to get braces--at my expense-- for my son....never quite understood that one)

Do I have an attitude about the family law system? YES!! Was it worth all the headaches (and believe me, I haven't even scratched the surface here) to get out of marriage number 1? YES!! And is marriage number 2 infinitely better ABSOLUTELY!!!

I now have a partner who is truly a partner. We are working towards the same goals, not at cross-purposes. It is without a doubt the best investment I ever made.