Marriage, How much is she worth?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

moorx said:

Call me unromantic, but the only thing that worries me about not being married (and I accept that there may be other things I should worry about) is the issue of inheritance tax. As I understand it, if one of us dies and we are not married, the surviving partner will be liable for inheritance tax on our property. Does anyone know if this is correct please?

Yes, it's correct. IHT exemption is only between married couples and civil partners.

[moorx]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

moorx said:

Call me unromantic, but the only thing that worries me about not being married (and I accept that there may be other things I should worry about) is the issue of inheritance tax. As I understand it, if one of us dies and we are not married, the surviving partner will be liable for inheritance tax on our property. Does anyone know if this is correct please?

Yes, it's correct. IHT exemption is only between married couples and civil partners.

Thank you for answering. This type of thing becomes more significant as middle-age approaches....

'approaches'? Who am I trying to kid?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

moorx said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

moorx said:

Call me unromantic, but the only thing that worries me about not being married (and I accept that there may be other things I should worry about) is the issue of inheritance tax. As I understand it, if one of us dies and we are not married, the surviving partner will be liable for inheritance tax on our property. Does anyone know if this is correct please?

Yes, it's correct. IHT exemption is only between married couples and civil partners.

Thank you for answering. This type of thing becomes more significant as middle-age approaches....

'approaches'? Who am I trying to kid?

There are a host of other issues to consider if not married. I know a woman who lived with a man for 40 odd years, 3 kids, I never knew they weren't married. He died shortly after retirement, and she was furious to discovery she wasn't eligible for any of his very generous company pension. Had they been married, she would have got half what he was getting every month for the rest of her life (which could well be 30 years!!!)

[moorx]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There are a host of other issues to consider if not married. I know a woman who lived with a man for 40 odd years, 3 kids, I never knew they weren't married. He died shortly after retirement, and she was furious to discovery she wasn't eligible for any of his very generous company pension. Had they been married, she would have got half what he was getting every month for the rest of her life (which could well be 30 years!!!)

Sadly, that's one issue we won't have. Neither of us have a pension (company or otherwise). OH worked for a small business for many years without pension provision, then joined the 'family' business when his dad was diagnosed with cancer, so that he could live in and look after him (his mum had already died). Again, no pension - his savings were his pension, but his brother ended up with that money (a long, tedious and nasty story I won't go into ). I opted out of my works pension on the advice of my ex-husband, who had a forces, PO and two private pensions - 'don't worry, love, I'll look after you, let's have a bit of extra money each month'. Once we divorced, I couldn't afford to pay into a pension because I was then paying all the same household bills on one income. Although I'm now in another relationship, I'm still the sole earner because our business isn't making any money yet.

Still, food for thought. Maybe we'll just elope to Gretna

[benters]

lots talk about the financial implications. . . . .I wonder how many have considered revising their own financial set up as a result of reading this thread.

[AyBee]

Bibbs said:

alock said:

I think that if people thought about marriage as a company it makes much more sense.

It's how I went through my divorce.

We worked out what was put in at the start, then worked out any gains made since then (possessions) and split them 50/50.

It actually meant we both came out of it better than when we went in, and not a penny went to lawyers.

Which seems like a very sensible way to treat it (assuming no kids of course), but I'd assume the split was amicable and with the incentive of £0.5m+ on either side, it could have changed a lot...

[OwenK]

AyBee said:

Which seems like a very sensible way to treat it (assuming no kids of course), but I'd assume the split was amicable and with the incentive of £0.5m+ on either side, it could have changed a lot...

It only works if you have a logical reasonable ex. Mine assumes that since her money went on joint assets while mine went on supporting the family (and as such have nothing left to show for it) she should get to keep them because they're "hers".
No dear

[Bibbs]

AyBee said:

Which seems like a very sensible way to treat it (assuming no kids of course), but I'd assume the split was amicable and with the incentive of £0.5m+ on either side, it could have changed a lot...

Maybe it would have.

Our first discussion was about the costs involved in disagreements. Did we want to pay thousands to claw back hundreds?

Then it was working out who wanted/could afford the house. Then it was working out the 'buy out' costs as she put in most of the house deposit, but I'd paid most of the bills/mortgage.

Then it was choices to make sure that neither of us had any big ticket items to buy. A car each, split the furniture so we both had a sofa/TV/bed/etc.

Got it all done as quickly as possible, so we could both move on financially.

Just had to do it without emotion. You do feel like punishing the other party, but what's the point? Get it done, sign the paperwork, and get on with life.

[TedMaul]

sealtt said:

I've battled this one out in my mind a lot, it's not a good time to be a man and get married or have kids, the cards are undoubtedly stacked against you, especially if you are the primary breadwinner. I hope the prenup laws in this country catch up to be relevant to the society we live in.

Right now the whole thing is a joke and there are many disgraceful cases, though I think the worst are by far the treatment of mothers vs fathers regarding post separation rights to the child. That to me is far worse than any court grabbing money from you. Though the whole thing is a mess.

This. All the cards are stacked, but the kids one is the worst sorry. I'm lucky, I have mine 50/50 pretty much and have lots of school hols with them but its been made clear that if I don't like any aspect of my lot, I know where the discussion will end.

[C.A.R.]

Rather than start my own self-pitying thread I thought this topic was relevant enough for my predicament...

I'll paint the picture -
Been together almost 5 years
2 daughters, one 3yrs and one 3 months
Privately rent
~4.5k credit card debt
I work full time, partner is on maternity leave with pay, won't be intending to return to part-time work until next March...

I'm feeling pressured to commit to a date to get hitched. We have been engaged for around 2 years now and she feels it's 'time'

However, my head says there are more important life goals we must achieve first. For one, clearing that joint debt (which is in my name). From there, I'd like the security or at least be on our way to saving for our own place, as privately renting is ideally only a 2-3 year plan. I can't put the level of saving required for this into effect until she is back to working full time again, something which she doesn't want to do until our youngest is going to school / nursery - so 3 years away.

At the same time our friends and relatives of similar age are getting wed. Mainly with huge cash injection from bank of mum and dad - something I don't agree with at all, I watched my own sister sink her claws into my dad and take him for thousands over the last few years and it disgusts me. If they want to help then fine, but I'm not going to them cap-in-hand.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? My stance is that I won't consider getting married until the other obligations / plans are fulfilled, which effectively means insisting she returns to work full-time. I suggested this once - at my cost - and the response was that she should be a stay at home mum until our children are in full time education "didn't have children just to have someone else look after them" I think was the line. This seems a bit rich, to me, whilst I'm fully aware that being a full time mum is hard work (as I'm constantly reminded) it's not tantamount to actually bringing in a 15-20k salary, it's a lifestyle choice.

So over to PH - should I bow to pressure and commit to a date and effectively put all my other plans on hold for 24 months or so, or should I stand my ground and try to encourage my partner that these plans will be better for all of us in the long term?

I understand it's important for a woman to get married whilst she is still young and it's 'fashionable' to do it in your twenties, but surely common sense has to apply here, over and above 'love'?

[anonymous-user]

C.A.R. said:

Rather than start my own self-pitying thread I thought this topic was relevant enough for my predicament...

I'll paint the picture -
Been together almost 5 years
2 daughters, one 3yrs and one 3 months
Privately rent
~4.5k credit card debt
I work full time, partner is on maternity leave with pay, won't be intending to return to part-time work until next March...

I'm feeling pressured to commit to a date to get hitched. We have been engaged for around 2 years now and she feels it's 'time'

However, my head says there are more important life goals we must achieve first. For one, clearing that joint debt (which is in my name). From there, I'd like the security or at least be on our way to saving for our own place, as privately renting is ideally only a 2-3 year plan. I can't put the level of saving required for this into effect until she is back to working full time again, something which she doesn't want to do until our youngest is going to school / nursery - so 3 years away.

At the same time our friends and relatives of similar age are getting wed. Mainly with huge cash injection from bank of mum and dad - something I don't agree with at all, I watched my own sister sink her claws into my dad and take him for thousands over the last few years and it disgusts me. If they want to help then fine, but I'm not going to them cap-in-hand.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? My stance is that I won't consider getting married until the other obligations / plans are fulfilled, which effectively means insisting she returns to work full-time. I suggested this once - at my cost - and the response was that she should be a stay at home mum until our children are in full time education "didn't have children just to have someone else look after them" I think was the line. This seems a bit rich, to me, whilst I'm fully aware that being a full time mum is hard work (as I'm constantly reminded) it's not tantamount to actually bringing in a 15-20k salary, it's a lifestyle choice.

So over to PH - should I bow to pressure and commit to a date and effectively put all my other plans on hold for 24 months or so, or should I stand my ground and try to encourage my partner that these plans will be better for all of us in the long term?

I understand it's important for a woman to get married whilst she is still young and it's 'fashionable' to do it in your twenties, but surely common sense has to apply here, over and above 'love'?

I think most guys use the engagement as a way of appeasing the women when the marriage hints start to get too much. Unfortunately this really only buys you another two years or so as you have now discovered.

You have some debt and don't own a property and any rational person would agree that it is crazy to spend all that money getting married when you don't even own your own house. However, when it comes to weddings, women are not rational and can't think of anything other than a massive bridezilla party. I know a couple who are living in a rented one bedroom flat with a baby who thought it was more important to blow £30K+ on the wedding rather than owning their own property.

The fact that your girlfriend expects to stay at home and look after the children is a massive warning sign to me. This is not a partnership, she sees you as a provider so she can have children and not work. Personally I think you are 100% correct but you will never win against a woman's logic.

I personally think you are screwed, and I know exactly how this is going to pan out and it is not going to end well for you.

[GT03ROB]

C.A.R. said:

Rather than start my own self-pitying thread I thought this topic was relevant enough for my predicament...

I'll paint the picture -
Been together almost 5 years
2 daughters, one 3yrs and one 3 months
Privately rent
~4.5k credit card debt
I work full time, partner is on maternity leave with pay, won't be intending to return to part-time work until next March...

I'm feeling pressured to commit to a date to get hitched. We have been engaged for around 2 years now and she feels it's 'time'

However, my head says there are more important life goals we must achieve first. For one, clearing that joint debt (which is in my name). From there, I'd like the security or at least be on our way to saving for our own place, as privately renting is ideally only a 2-3 year plan. I can't put the level of saving required for this into effect until she is back to working full time again, something which she doesn't want to do until our youngest is going to school / nursery - so 3 years away.

At the same time our friends and relatives of similar age are getting wed. Mainly with huge cash injection from bank of mum and dad - something I don't agree with at all, I watched my own sister sink her claws into my dad and take him for thousands over the last few years and it disgusts me. If they want to help then fine, but I'm not going to them cap-in-hand.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? My stance is that I won't consider getting married until the other obligations / plans are fulfilled, which effectively means insisting she returns to work full-time. I suggested this once - at my cost - and the response was that she should be a stay at home mum until our children are in full time education "didn't have children just to have someone else look after them" I think was the line. This seems a bit rich, to me, whilst I'm fully aware that being a full time mum is hard work (as I'm constantly reminded) it's not tantamount to actually bringing in a 15-20k salary, it's a lifestyle choice.

So over to PH - should I bow to pressure and commit to a date and effectively put all my other plans on hold for 24 months or so, or should I stand my ground and try to encourage my partner that these plans will be better for all of us in the long term?

I understand it's important for a woman to get married whilst she is still young and it's 'fashionable' to do it in your twenties, but surely common sense has to apply here, over and above 'love'?

Simple question really..... do you want to get married eventually? If you do no probs, if it's still a stall you have a problem & she'll see it as a stall.

[anonymous-user]

Would she be happy with a simple wedding that costs very little?


I know, crazy idea!!

[ewenm]

C.A.R. said:

Rather than start my own self-pitying thread I thought this topic was relevant enough for my predicament...

I'll paint the picture -
Been together almost 5 years
2 daughters, one 3yrs and one 3 months
Privately rent
~4.5k credit card debt
I work full time, partner is on maternity leave with pay, won't be intending to return to part-time work until next March...

I'm feeling pressured to commit to a date to get hitched. We have been engaged for around 2 years now and she feels it's 'time'

However, my head says there are more important life goals we must achieve first. For one, clearing that joint debt (which is in my name). From there, I'd like the security or at least be on our way to saving for our own place, as privately renting is ideally only a 2-3 year plan. I can't put the level of saving required for this into effect until she is back to working full time again, something which she doesn't want to do until our youngest is going to school / nursery - so 3 years away.

At the same time our friends and relatives of similar age are getting wed. Mainly with huge cash injection from bank of mum and dad - something I don't agree with at all, I watched my own sister sink her claws into my dad and take him for thousands over the last few years and it disgusts me. If they want to help then fine, but I'm not going to them cap-in-hand.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? My stance is that I won't consider getting married until the other obligations / plans are fulfilled, which effectively means insisting she returns to work full-time. I suggested this once - at my cost - and the response was that she should be a stay at home mum until our children are in full time education "didn't have children just to have someone else look after them" I think was the line. This seems a bit rich, to me, whilst I'm fully aware that being a full time mum is hard work (as I'm constantly reminded) it's not tantamount to actually bringing in a 15-20k salary, it's a lifestyle choice.

So over to PH - should I bow to pressure and commit to a date and effectively put all my other plans on hold for 24 months or so, or should I stand my ground and try to encourage my partner that these plans will be better for all of us in the long term?

I understand it's important for a woman to get married whilst she is still young and it's 'fashionable' to do it in your twenties, but surely common sense has to apply here, over and above 'love'?

What's your actual objection to getting married? If it is cost of the wedding, it can be done for ~£100 at a registry office. Of course, that may not fit with your or her idea of a wedding, but then a wedding and a marriage are two very different things.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I don't understand how you can have 2 children but not want to get married until you achieve certain financial goals. Just seems arse about face.

We got married, but didn't have children until we'd got to a pre agreed financial position. Given that getting married costs next to nothing, and kids cost tens of thousands, that seems to me to be a more obvious approach.

[BoRED S2upid]

alock said:

I think that if people thought about marriage as a company it makes much more sense.

Originally you are 100% share holder of John Smith Ltd. You then meet someone who is 100% share holder of James Doe Ltd.

When you move in together you are now also both 50% share holders of Smith & Doe Ltd. The assumption is that anything you now do is for the benefit of the new company and not the original companies unless you are very careful with the paper work.

Getting married is just closing down the two original companies and moving all assets into the third company.

If you're not prepared to close down those companies then don't get married.

Clinical but very true. Even better if you own a crappy pound shop and she's the CEO of Toys R Us

[benters]

C.A.R. said:

Rather than start my own self-pitying thread I thought this topic was relevant enough for my predicament...

I'll paint the picture -
Been together almost 5 years
2 daughters, one 3yrs and one 3 months
Privately rent
~4.5k credit card debt
I work full time, partner is on maternity leave with pay, won't be intending to return to part-time work until next March...

I'm feeling pressured to commit to a date to get hitched. We have been engaged for around 2 years now and she feels it's 'time'

However, my head says there are more important life goals we must achieve first. For one, clearing that joint debt (which is in my name). From there, I'd like the security or at least be on our way to saving for our own place, as privately renting is ideally only a 2-3 year plan. I can't put the level of saving required for this into effect until she is back to working full time again, something which she doesn't want to do until our youngest is going to school / nursery - so 3 years away.

At the same time our friends and relatives of similar age are getting wed. Mainly with huge cash injection from bank of mum and dad - something I don't agree with at all, I watched my own sister sink her claws into my dad and take him for thousands over the last few years and it disgusts me. If they want to help then fine, but I'm not going to them cap-in-hand.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations? My stance is that I won't consider getting married until the other obligations / plans are fulfilled, which effectively means insisting she returns to work full-time. I suggested this once - at my cost - and the response was that she should be a stay at home mum until our children are in full time education "didn't have children just to have someone else look after them" I think was the line. This seems a bit rich, to me, whilst I'm fully aware that being a full time mum is hard work (as I'm constantly reminded) it's not tantamount to actually bringing in a 15-20k salary, it's a lifestyle choice.

So over to PH - should I bow to pressure and commit to a date and effectively put all my other plans on hold for 24 months or so, or should I stand my ground and try to encourage my partner that these plans will be better for all of us in the long term?

I understand it's important for a woman to get married whilst she is still young and it's 'fashionable' to do it in your twenties, but surely common sense has to apply here, over and above 'love'?

I admire you for posting what on the face of it appears to be a problem brewing out of your reasonable control.

Whilst I appreciate my reply might be over simplistic, and it is not meant in any derogatory tone, but how is it that you can choose to have children and bring them in to the world when on balance it appears you cannot afford it. Your situation maybe one where you have inherited debt as you explain, and you are honourable to now see this as a joint problem that you alone can only appear to repay and solve. But to spend money that is obviously better used to clear your debt on a wedding is in my view insanity.

I hope your partner is able to see sense, but fear that if she isn't then you are staring at a problem that will never go away and become a wedge between you both.

Perhaps my view is way off, and I hope it does not cause offence, but to fund a marriage from what ever financial source currently is not the way forward.

[AyBee]

You seem to be worried about doing things in the 'right' order and yet you already have 2 kids. There are 2 issues here, one is getting married, the other is her not working until the kids are at school, from your OP, it sounds like the second one is concerning you more. Can she not at least get a part-time job?

You're also equating married with expensive, say you're happy to get married but it won't be a big affair since you already have £4.5k debt and 1 income. Either she'll say fine, and you can get it done cheap, or she wants a big affair and will have to wait until the debt is clear and she's back in work.

How old are you by the way?

[Ari]

Joey Deacon said:

I would actually argue that the true divorce rate is at least 50% as those figures include all the people from our parents generation when divorce was much less common. I think if you only included marriages from the last 15 years or so the divorce rate would actually be higher than 50%.

Thought of this post when reading some statistics (in Car Magazine of all places).

According to Department of Trade's Adultdata service and the Office of National Statistics the average man:

Watches more than 40,000 hours of television in his life
Holidays in Spain
Has sex once a month if over 40 (but 200 times a year during their early years of marriage)
And has a 50% chance of getting divorced

Quite depressing really (if you're average...)

[Ari]

ewenm said:

What's your actual objection to getting married? If it is cost of the wedding, it can be done for ~£100 at a registry office. Of course, that may not fit with your or her idea of a wedding, but then a wedding and a marriage are two very different things.

Nail, head hit.